9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Seasonal variation of epiphytic bacteria in the phyllosphere of Gingko biloba, Pinus bungeana and Sabina chinensis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Phyllosphere harbors diverse microorganisms, which influence plant growth and health. In order to understand the extent to which environmental factors affect epiphytic microbial communities, we characterized microbial communities on leaves of three separate tree species present on the college campus, and also present within a forest park over two seasons. Quantitative PCR analysis showed the quantity of 16S rRNA genes was lower in May compared with October, while the abundances of functional genes (nifH and bacterial amoA genes) were extremely high in May. High-throughput sequencing revealed a large variation in the diversity and composition of bacterial and diazotrophic communities over the two seasons, and showed the abundance of functional genera, such as Nocardioides, Bacillus and Zoogloea were significantly elevated in May. In addition, xenobiotic biodegradation pathways of bacterial communities were clearly elevated in May. Network analysis showed the correlations between phyllospheric bacteria in May were more complex than that in October and showed greater negative correlations. These results were consistent in all tree species in this study. This study showed that phyllospheric bacteria varied greatly in different seasons, which implies that different growing seasons should be considered in the exploitation of the interactions between phyllospheric microorganisms and host plants.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies.

          Next-generation sequencing technologies generate very large numbers of short reads. Even with very deep genome coverage, short read lengths cause problems in de novo assemblies. The use of paired-end libraries with a fragment size shorter than twice the read length provides an opportunity to generate much longer reads by overlapping and merging read pairs before assembling a genome. We present FLASH, a fast computational tool to extend the length of short reads by overlapping paired-end reads from fragment libraries that are sufficiently short. We tested the correctness of the tool on one million simulated read pairs, and we then applied it as a pre-processor for genome assemblies of Illumina reads from the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus and human chromosome 14. FLASH correctly extended and merged reads >99% of the time on simulated reads with an error rate of <1%. With adequately set parameters, FLASH correctly merged reads over 90% of the time even when the reads contained up to 5% errors. When FLASH was used to extend reads prior to assembly, the resulting assemblies had substantially greater N50 lengths for both contigs and scaffolds. The FLASH system is implemented in C and is freely available as open-source code at http://www.cbcb.umd.edu/software/flash. t.magoc@gmail.com.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Microbiology of the Phyllosphere

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Soil Microbiome Influences Grapevine-Associated Microbiota

              ABSTRACT Grapevine is a well-studied, economically relevant crop, whose associated bacteria could influence its organoleptic properties. In this study, the spatial and temporal dynamics of the bacterial communities associated with grapevine organs (leaves, flowers, grapes, and roots) and soils were characterized over two growing seasons to determine the influence of vine cultivar, edaphic parameters, vine developmental stage (dormancy, flowering, preharvest), and vineyard. Belowground bacterial communities differed significantly from those aboveground, and yet the communities associated with leaves, flowers, and grapes shared a greater proportion of taxa with soil communities than with each other, suggesting that soil may serve as a bacterial reservoir. A subset of soil microorganisms, including root colonizers significantly enriched in plant growth-promoting bacteria and related functional genes, were selected by the grapevine. In addition to plant selective pressure, the structure of soil and root microbiota was significantly influenced by soil pH and C:N ratio, and changes in leaf- and grape-associated microbiota were correlated with soil carbon and showed interannual variation even at small spatial scales. Diazotrophic bacteria, e.g., Rhizobiaceae and Bradyrhizobium spp., were significantly more abundant in soil samples and root samples of specific vineyards. Vine-associated microbial assemblages were influenced by myriad factors that shape their composition and structure, but the majority of organ-associated taxa originated in the soil, and their distribution reflected the influence of highly localized biogeographic factors and vineyard management.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                FEMS Microbiology Ecology
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0168-6496
                1574-6941
                March 01 2020
                March 2020
                February 01 2020
                March 01 2020
                March 2020
                : 96
                : 3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Key Laboratory of Environmental Biotechnology, Research Center for Eco-Environment Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
                [2 ]College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
                [3 ]College of Resources and Environment, Henan University of Engineering, Zhengzhou 451191, China
                [4 ]College of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
                Article
                10.1093/femsec/fiaa017
                32005997
                90713570-072e-4e32-b908-d957288712d6
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article