Rhizosphere Bacterial Community and Diversity at Fields of Wilt Resistant or Susceptible Mulberry Trees

WU Huazhou; LOU Dezhao; TU Nana; GENG Tao; LU Fuping; JI Xuncong; WANG Shuchang

doi:10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2020.09.012

Volume 35 Issue 9

Sep. 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences > 2020 > 35(9): 1004-1011

WU H Z, LOU D Z, TU N N, et al. Rhizosphere Bacterial Community and Diversity at Fields of Wilt Resistant or Susceptible Mulberry Trees [J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences，2020，35（9）：1004−1011 doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2020.09.012

Citation:

WU H Z, LOU D Z, TU N N, et al. Rhizosphere Bacterial Community and Diversity at Fields of Wilt Resistant or Susceptible Mulberry Trees [J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences，2020，35（9）：1004−1011 doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2020.09.012

Citation:

PDF( 1084 KB)

Rhizosphere Bacterial Community and Diversity at Fields of Wilt Resistant or Susceptible Mulberry Trees

doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2020.09.012

WU Huazhou^1
,,
LOU Dezhao^{1, 2},
TU Nana^{1, 2},
GENG Tao¹,
LU Fuping¹,
JI Xuncong^{3, 4},
WANG Shuchang^{1
,
,}

1.
Institute of Environment and Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Haikou, Hainan　571101, China
2.
Hainan University, Haikou, Hainan　570228, China
3.
Institute of Plant Protection, Hainan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Haikou, Hainan　571100, China
4.
Key Laboratory of Plant Disease and Pest Control of Hainan Province, Haikou, Hainan　571100, China

Received Date: 2020-08-10
Rev Recd Date: 2020-09-08
Publish Date: 2020-09-28

Abstract

Abstract

Objective Structure and diversity of rhizosphere bacterial communities at fields of mulberry trees resistant (QZ2K) or susceptible (QZ2G) to wilt disease were studied. Method The V3-V4 regions of 16S rRNA in rhizosphere bacteria were amplified and sequenced using high-throughput sequencing technology on Illumina MiSeq to determine the bacterial community structure, diversity, and functions. Results from the two field samples were compared. Result (1) At phylum and genus levels, the dominant rhizosphere bacteria were similar at QZ2K (Kangqing 283×Kangqing 10 mulberry field) and at QZ2G (Guisangyou 62 mulberry field). The phyla included Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, and Bacteroidetes, while the genera consisted of MND1, Gaiella, Nitrospira, Haliangium, and Streptomyces. (2) Although no significant difference in the alpha diversity of the bacteria communities at the two different fields, the NMDS ordination showed significant differences (stress 0.005<0.05). At QZ2K, the bacteria related to significant metabolic functions were Nitrospira, Acidobacteriia, Nitrospirales, Solibacteraies, Acidobacteriales, Nitrospiraceae, and the uncultured Acidobacteria, Solibacteraies Subgroup 3, and Solibacteraies Subgroup 2. At QZ2G, only Ilumatobacteraceae and TRA3-20-other were identified. (3) According to the Wilcoxon signed rank test, the 763 different rhizosphere bacteria orthologs identified were only 17.25% of all COG orthologs on both fields. Conclusion There were no significant differences in the richness and diversity of rhizosphere bacteria community between the two fields. However, the bacteria associated with significant functions differed significantly between them, which could well be the species that made the difference in the occurrence of wilt disease on the mulberry plants. The information obtained in this study was of value for further studies on the microecological characteristics of mulberry rhizosphere as well as selection and application of functional bacteria for wilt control.
- Mulberry,
- bacterial wilt,
- Illumina high-throughput sequencing,
- bacterial diversity,
- community structure

FullText(HTML)

References(26)

References

[1]	XIONG W, SONG Y Q, YANG K M, et al. Rhizosphere protists are key determinants of plant health [J]. Microbiome, 2020, 8: 27. doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00799-9
[2]	RODRIGUEZ P A, ROTHBALLER M, CHOWDHURY S P, et al. Systems biology of plant-microbiome interactions [J]. Molecular Plant, 2019, 12(6): 804−821. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2019.05.006
[3]	BERENDSEN R L, VISMANS G, YU K, et al. Disease-induced assemblage of a plant-beneficial bacterial consortium [J]. The ISME Journal, 2018, 12(6): 1496−1507. doi: 10.1038/s41396-018-0093-1
[4]	ROUT M E, SOUTHWORTH D. The root microbiome influences scales from molecules to ecosystems: The unseen majority1 [J]. American Journal of Botany, 2013, 100(9): 1689−1691. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1300291
[5]	KWAK M J, KONG H G, CHOI K, et al. Rhizosphere microbiome structure alters to enable wilt resistance in tomato [J]. Nature Biotechnology, 2018, 36(11): 1100−1109. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4232
[6]	ROLFE S A, GRIFFITHS J, TON J. Crying out for help with root exudates: adaptive mechanisms by which stressed plants assemble health-promoting soil microbiomes [J]. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 2019, 49: 73−82. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2019.10.003
[7]	WEI Z, GU Y A, FRIMAN V P, et al. Initial soil microbiome composition and functioning predetermine future plant health [J]. Science Advances, 2019, 5(9): eaaw0759. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw0759
[8]	颜朗, 张义正, 方志荣, 等. 不同马铃薯基因型对根际细菌群落结构的影响 [J]. 四川大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 57(2):383−390. YAN L, ZHANG Y Z, FANG Z R, et al. Effects of potato genotype on rhizososphere bacterial community structure [J]. Journal of Sichuan University (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 57(2): 383−390.(in Chinese
[9]	LAREEN A, BURTON F, SCHÄFER P. Plant root-microbe communication in shaping root microbiomes [J]. Plant Molecular Biology, 2016, 90(6): 575−587. doi: 10.1007/s11103-015-0417-8
[10]	蔡秋华, 左进香, 李忠环, 等. 抗性烤烟品种根际微生物数量及功能多样性差异 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(12):3766−3772. CAI Q H, ZUO J, LI Z H, et al. Difference of rhizosphere microbe quantity and functional diversity among three flue-cured tobacco cultivars with different resistance [J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2015, 26(12): 3766−3772.(in Chinese
[11]	MENDES L W, RAAIJMAKERS J M, DE HOLLANDER M, et al. Influence of resistance breeding in common bean on rhizosphere microbiome composition and function [J]. The ISME Journal, 2018, 12(1): 212−224. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.158
[12]	曹梦琪. 桑树青枯病病原菌的分离鉴定及其活体检测方法的建立 [D]. 镇江: 江苏科技大学, 2017. CAO M Q. Isolation, Identification and Establishment of Viable Cells Detection of the Pathogen of Mulberry Bacterial Wilt [D]. Zhenjiang: Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, 2017. (in Chinese).
[13]	李磊. 华南地区桑树青枯病原菌的收集鉴定及侵染机制的初步研究 [D]. 镇江: 江苏科技大学, 2017. LI L. Collecting for identification of the pathogen of Mulberry Wilt Disease in South China and a preliminary study on the mechanism of infection [D]. Guangzhou: Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, 2017. (in Chinese).
[14]	王树昌, 耿涛, 黄华平. 海南蚕桑 [M]. 海口: 南海出版公司, 2017: 68-80.
[15]	黄富, 张伟国, 黄胜, 等. 桑树抗青283×抗青10杂交组合的育成 [J]. 广东蚕业, 2006, 4(4):24−28. HUANG F, ZHANG WG, HUANG S, et al. Breeding of mulberry Kangqing 283 × Kangqing 10 [J]. Guangdong Sericulture, 2006, 4(4): 24−28.(in Chinese
[16]	朱方荣. 桂桑优62和桂桑优12的特点及栽培 [J]. 广西农业科学, 2001(4):199. ZHU F R. Characteristics and cultivation of Guisangyou 62 and Guisangyou 12 [J]. Guangxi Agricultural Sciences, 2001(4): 199.(in Chinese
[17]	NOSSA C W. Design of 16S rRNA gene primers for 454 pyrosequencing of the human foregut microbiome [J]. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2010, 16(33): 4135. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i33.4135
[18]	邱洁, 徐丽丽, 钱叶, 等. 不同品种桑树根际土壤细菌群落及土壤理化性质的研究 [J]. 蚕业科学, 2017, 43(4):568−576. QIU J, XU L L, QIAN Y, et al. An investigation on rhizospheric bacterial community and soil physical and chemical properties of different mulberry varieties [J]. Acta Sericologica Sinica, 2017, 43(4): 568−576.(in Chinese
[19]	BHATTI A A, HAQ S, BHAT R A. Actinomycetes benefaction role in soil and plant health [J]. Microbial Pathogenesis, 2017, 111: 458−467. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.09.036
[20]	向立刚, 周浩, 汪汉成. 健康与感染青枯病烟株根际土壤与茎秆细菌群落结构与多样性 [J]. 微生物学报, 2019, 59(10):1984−1999. XIANG LG, ZHOU H, WANG H C. Bacterial community structure and diversity of rhizosphere soil and stem of healthy and bacterial wilt tobacco plants [J]. Acta Microbiologica Sinica, 2019, 59(10): 1984−1999.(in Chinese
[21]	KYSELKOVÁ M, KOPECKÝ J, FRAPOLLI M, et al. Comparison of rhizobacterial community composition in soil suppressive or conducive to tobacco black root rot disease [J]. The ISME Journal, 2009, 3(10): 1127−1138. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2009.61
[22]	ADHIKARI T B, JOSEPH C M, YANG G P, et al. Evaluation of bacteria isolated from rice for plant growth promotion and biological control of seedling disease of rice [J]. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 2001, 47(10): 916−924. doi: 10.1139/w01-097
[23]	HUANG A C, JIANG T, LIU Y X, et al. A specialized metabolic network selectively modulates Arabidopsis root microbiota [J]. Science, 2019, 364(6440): 1−9.
[24]	COTTON T E A, PÉTRIACQ P, CAMERON D D, et al. Metabolic regulation of the maize rhizobiome by benzoxazinoids [J]. The ISME Journal, 2019, 13(7): 1647−1658. doi: 10.1038/s41396-019-0375-2
[25]	BULGARELLI D, ROTT M, SCHLAEPPI K, et al. Revealing structure and assembly cues for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota [J]. Nature, 2012, 488(7409): 91−95. doi: 10.1038/nature11336
[26]	VÍCTOR J C, JUAN P J, VIVIANE C, et al. Pathogen-induced activation of disease - suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome [J]. Science, 2019, 366(6465): 606−612. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw9285