| Literature DB >> 36225362 |
Manoj Kumar Solanki1, Anjali Chandrol Solanki2, Shalini Rai3, Supriya Srivastava4, Brijendra Kumar Kashyap5, Praveen Kumar Divvela6, Sudheer Kumar7, Mahesh S Yandigeri8, Prem Lal Kashyap7, Alok Kumar Shrivastava9, Baber Ali10, Shahid Khan11,12, Mariusz Jaremko13, Kamal Ahmad Qureshi14.
Abstract
Microbial interactions with plant roots play an imperial role in tomato plant growth and defense against the Rhizoctonia solani. This study performed a field experiment with two antagonistic bacteria (Pseudomonas and Bacillus) inoculated in healthy and Rhizoctonia solani treated soil in tomato rhizosphere to understand the metabolic pattern and microbial function during plant disease suppression. In the present study, we assessed soil and microbial enzymes, bacterial and fungal cell forming unit (CFU), and carbon utilization profiling through Bio-Eco plates of rhizoplane samples. Antagonist bacteria and pathogen interaction significantly (p < 0.05) influenced the bacterial count, soil enzymes (chitinase and glucanase), and bacterial function (siderophore and chitinase production). These results indicated that these variables had an imperial role in disease suppression during plant development. Furthermore, the metabolic profiling showed that carbon source utilization enhanced under fruit development and ripening stages. These results suggested that carbon sources were essential in plant/pathogen/antagonist interaction. Substrates like β-methyl-D-glucoside, D-mannitol, D-galacturonic acid, N-acetyl-D-glucosamine, and phenylethylamine strongly connect with the suppuration of root rot disease. These carbon sources may help to propagate a healthy microbial community to reduce the pathogen invasion in the plant root system, and these carbon sources can be stimulators of antagonists against pathogens in the future.Entities:
Keywords: BIOLOG; bacillus; community-level physiological profile; disease incidence; pseudomonas
Year: 2022 PMID: 36225362 PMCID: PMC9548980 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.990850
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
FIGURE 1Schematic representation of the present study. CFU-Colony forming unit, CLPP- community-level physiological profiling.
FIGURE 2Impact of pathogen and antagonist treated soil on the microbial count and soil enzymes. Treatments: (T1) Pseudomonas alone, (T2) Bacillus alone, (T3) healthy control (autoclaved liquid suspension without bacteria), (T4) antagonist Pseudomonas + R. solani, (T5) Bacillus + R. solani, and (T6) R. solani alone with autoclaved liquid suspension without bacteria. Stage 1 (vegetative stage), Stage 2 (flowering stage), and Stage 3 (fruit ripening stage). Mean values (n = 3) in the same column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different at (P < 0.05) according to the DMRT test.
The P-values of PERMANOVA for soil parameters, microbial count, diversity indices, and different classes of AWCD rate in R. solani infected and healthy soil.
| Parameters | Healthy soil (-RS) | Pathogen-infected soil (+ RS) | |||||
| T | GS | T × GS | T | GS | T × GS | ||
| CFU | Bacterial | 0.001 | 0.00 | 0.001 | 0.054 | 0.00 | 0.002 |
| Fungal | 0.566 | 0.321 | 0.898 | 0.210 | 0.051 | 0.762 | |
| Soil enzymes | Dehydrogenase | 0.118 | 0.00 | 0.017 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.846 |
| Chitinase | 0.00 | 0.001 | 0.113 | 0.024 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Glucanase | 0.012 | 0.00 | 0.114 | 0.065 | 0.00 | 0.003 | |
| Bacterial | Siderophore (%) | 0.001 | 0.00 | 0.122 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.001 |
| Chitinase (%) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.021 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.008 | |
| Metabolic responce | AWCD (120 h) | 0.003 | 0.090 | 0.520 | 0.00 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| CMD | 0.031 | 0.00 | 0.366 | 0.00 | 0.024 | 0.199 | |
| Diversity indices | Shannon index | 0.146 | 0.989 | 0.465 | 0.00 | 0.001 | 0.00 |
| Simpson index | 0.00 | 0.011 | 0.069 | 0.003 | 0.398 | 0.134 | |
| McIntosh index | 0.003 | 0.020 | 0.823 | 0.00 | 0.018 | 0.037 | |
| Substrate richness | 0.350 | 0.661 | 0.189 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.020 | |
| Substrate evenness | 0.292 | 0.946 | 0.694 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.00 | |
| Substracte classes | Amines/amides | 0.018 | 0.011 | 0.100 | 0.026 | 0.025 | 0.089 |
| Amino acids | 0.132 | 0.020 | 0.209 | 0.00 | 0.199 | 0.730 | |
| Carbohydrates | 0.322 | 0.015 | 0.036 | 0.00 | 0.027 | 0.040 | |
| Acids derived from carbohydrate | 0.218 | 0.002 | 0.059 | 0.084 | 0.166 | 0.138 | |
| Carboxylic & acetic acids | 0.057 | 0.285 | 0.010 | 0.00 | 0.001 | 0.415 | |
| Polymers | 0.108 | 0.664 | 0.608 | 0.001 | 0.241 | 0.072 | |
Average well color development (AWCD), community metabolic diversity (CMD), Rhizoctonia solani (RS), Colony forming unit (CFU); Bacterial treatments (T): Pseudomonas and Bacillus; Growth stages (GS): different growth stages of tomato; Significance level *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
FIGURE 3Microbial siderophore and chitinase frequency of bacteria isolated from different treatments. Mean values (n = 3) in the same column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different at (P < 0.05) according to the DMRT test. Treatment details as Figure 2.
FIGURE 4Circular heat map and hierarchical cluster analysis based on the average well color development (AWCD) at 120 h of soil microbial communities under pathogen and antagonist treated soil. Higher to low AWCD response indicated via red to blue gradient. Treatment details as Figure 2.
FIGURE 5Community-level physiological profiles (CLPP) of pathogen and antagonist treated soil samples. Substrates were classified as amines/amides, amino acids, carbohydrates, Acids derived from carbohydrates (ADC), Carboxylic & acetic acids (CAA), and polymers. Mean values (n = 3) in the same column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different at (P < 0.05) according to the DMRT test. Treatment details as Figure 2.
The P-values of PERMANOVA of carbon substrates under healthy and R. solani infected soil during the plant development.
| Carbon sources | Substrate classes | Healthy soil (-RS) | Pathogen-infected soil (+ RS) | ||||
| T | GS | T × GS | T | GS | T × GS | ||
| Pyruvic acid methyl ester | Carbohydrate | 0.589 | 0.156 | 0.006 | 0.110 | 0.071 | 0.006 |
| Tween 40 | Polymers | 0.00 | 0.003 | 0.620 | 0.031 | 0.084 | 0.689 |
| Tween 80 | Polymers | 0.199 | 0.006 | 0.701 | 0.805 | 0.189 | 0.396 |
| Alpha-cyclodextrin | Polymers | 0.037 | 0.931 | 0.182 | 0.134 | 0.781 | 0.515 |
| Glycogen | Polymers | 0.133 | 0.974 | 0.217 | 0.018 | 0.027 | 0.114 |
| D-cellobiose | Carbohydrates | 0.015 | 0.007 | 0.024 | 0.040 | 0.053 | 0.007 |
| α-D-lactose | Carbohydrates | 0.424 | 0.117 | 0.595 | 0.454 | 0.252 | 0.114 |
| β-methyl-D-glucoside | Carbohydrates | 0.654 | 0.871 | 0.034 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.001 |
| D-xylose | Carbohydrates | 0.006 | 0.440 | 0.028 | 0.00 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| i-erythritol | Carbohydrates | 0.691 | 0.864 | 0.076 | 0.041 | 0.234 | 0.873 |
| D-mannitol | Carbohydrates | 0.833 | 0.146 | 0.558 | 0.00 | 0.021 | 0.00 |
| N-Acetyl-D-glucosamine | Carbohydrates | 0.039 | 0.201 | 0.002 | 0.00 | 0.505 | 0.040 |
| D-glucosaminic acid | Acids derived from carbohydrate | 0.355 | 0.557 | 0.394 | 0.056 | 0.018 | 0.701 |
| Glucose-1-phosphate | Carbohydrate | 0.172 | 0.00 | 0.021 | 0.451 | 0.223 | 0.004 |
| D,L-α-glycerol phosphate | Carbohydrate | 0.038 | 0.535 | 0.013 | 0.028 | 0.385 | 0.625 |
| D-galactonic acid-gamma-lactone | Acids derived from carbohydrate | 0.183 | 0.466 | 0.266 | 0.002 | 0.435 | 0.413 |
| D-galacturonic acid | Carboxylic & acetic acids | 0.353 | 0.185 | 0.774 | 0.001 | 0.010 | 0.00 |
| 2-Hydroxy benzoic acid | Carboxylic & acetic acids | 0.668 | 0.001 | 0.061 | 0.190 | 0.018 | 0.084 |
| 4-Hydroxy benzoic acid | Carboxylic & acetic acids | 0.828 | 0.597 | 0.080 | 0.268 | 0.069 | 0.212 |
| γ-hydroxybutyric acid | Carboxylic & acetic acids | 0.005 | 0.728 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.055 | 0.126 |
| Itaconic acid | Carboxylic & acetic acids | 0.459 | 0.723 | 0.064 | 0.016 | 0.811 | 0.456 |
| α-ketobutyric acid | Carboxylic & acetic acids | 0.148 | 0.306 | 0.097 | 0.037 | 0.076 | 0.151 |
| D-malic acid | Carboxylic & acetic acids | 0.001 | 0.00 | 0.019 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.751 |
| L-arginine | Amino acids | 0.578 | 0.024 | 0.071 | 0.356 | 0.130 | 0.124 |
| L-asparagine | Amino acids | 0.676 | 0.047 | 0.295 | 0.072 | 0.015 | 0.072 |
| L-phenylalanine | Amino acids | 0.012 | 0.00 | 0.025 | 0.537 | 0.497 | 0.767 |
| L-serine | Amino acids | 0.816 | 0.061 | 0.008 | 0.046 | 0.172 | 0.054 |
| L-threonine | Amino acids | 0.294 | 0.611 | 0.050 | 0.047 | 0.226 | 0.933 |
| Glycyl-L-glutamic acid | Amino acids | 0.191 | 0.337 | 0.784 | 0.118 | 0.623 | 0.172 |
| Phenylethylamine | Amines/amides | 0.164 | 0.326 | 0.738 | 0.048 | 0.067 | 0.025 |
| Putrescine | Amines/amides | 0.418 | 0.410 | 0.294 | 0.004 | 0.033 | 0.025 |
Bacterial treatments (T): Pseudomonas and Bacillus. Growth stages (GS): different growth stages of tomato.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
FIGURE 6Correlation heatmap between soil and plant parameters and carbon substrates under pathogen and antagonist treated soil. Positive correlation indicated via red and negative via blue color.