Cargando…

Differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte Suaeda species

Root-related or endophytic microbes in halophytes play an important role in adaptation to extreme saline environments. However, there have been few comparisons of microbial distribution patterns in different tissues associated with halophytes. Here, we analyzed the bacterial communities and distribu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peng, Mu, Wang, Chao, Wang, Zhiyong, Huang, Xiufang, Zhou, Fangzhen, Yan, Shaopeng, Liu, Xiaopeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9275862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35593105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2022.2076009
_version_ 1784745580359057408
author Peng, Mu
Wang, Chao
Wang, Zhiyong
Huang, Xiufang
Zhou, Fangzhen
Yan, Shaopeng
Liu, Xiaopeng
author_facet Peng, Mu
Wang, Chao
Wang, Zhiyong
Huang, Xiufang
Zhou, Fangzhen
Yan, Shaopeng
Liu, Xiaopeng
author_sort Peng, Mu
collection PubMed
description Root-related or endophytic microbes in halophytes play an important role in adaptation to extreme saline environments. However, there have been few comparisons of microbial distribution patterns in different tissues associated with halophytes. Here, we analyzed the bacterial communities and distribution patterns of the rhizospheres and tissue endosphere in two Suaeda species (S. salsa and S. corniculata Bunge) using the 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The results showed that the bacterial abundance and diversity in the rhizosphere were significantly higher than that of endophytic, but lower than that of bulk soil. Microbial-diversity analysis showed that the dominant phyla of all samples were Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Acidobacteria and Firmicutes, among which Proteobacteria were extremely abundant in all the tissue endosphere. Heatmap and Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) results showed that there were notable differences in microbial community composition related to plant compartments. Different networks based on plant compartments exhibited distinct topological features. Additionally, the bulk soil and rhizosphere networks were more complex and showed higher centrality and connectedness than the three endosphere networks. These results strongly suggested that plant compartments, and not species, affect microbiome composition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9275862
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92758622022-07-13 Differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte Suaeda species Peng, Mu Wang, Chao Wang, Zhiyong Huang, Xiufang Zhou, Fangzhen Yan, Shaopeng Liu, Xiaopeng Bioengineered Research Paper Root-related or endophytic microbes in halophytes play an important role in adaptation to extreme saline environments. However, there have been few comparisons of microbial distribution patterns in different tissues associated with halophytes. Here, we analyzed the bacterial communities and distribution patterns of the rhizospheres and tissue endosphere in two Suaeda species (S. salsa and S. corniculata Bunge) using the 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The results showed that the bacterial abundance and diversity in the rhizosphere were significantly higher than that of endophytic, but lower than that of bulk soil. Microbial-diversity analysis showed that the dominant phyla of all samples were Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Acidobacteria and Firmicutes, among which Proteobacteria were extremely abundant in all the tissue endosphere. Heatmap and Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) results showed that there were notable differences in microbial community composition related to plant compartments. Different networks based on plant compartments exhibited distinct topological features. Additionally, the bulk soil and rhizosphere networks were more complex and showed higher centrality and connectedness than the three endosphere networks. These results strongly suggested that plant compartments, and not species, affect microbiome composition. Taylor & Francis 2022-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9275862/ /pubmed/35593105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2022.2076009 Text en © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Peng, Mu
Wang, Chao
Wang, Zhiyong
Huang, Xiufang
Zhou, Fangzhen
Yan, Shaopeng
Liu, Xiaopeng
Differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte Suaeda species
title Differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte Suaeda species
title_full Differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte Suaeda species
title_fullStr Differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte Suaeda species
title_full_unstemmed Differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte Suaeda species
title_short Differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte Suaeda species
title_sort differences between the effects of plant species and compartments on microbiome composition in two halophyte suaeda species
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9275862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35593105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2022.2076009
work_keys_str_mv AT pengmu differencesbetweentheeffectsofplantspeciesandcompartmentsonmicrobiomecompositionintwohalophytesuaedaspecies
AT wangchao differencesbetweentheeffectsofplantspeciesandcompartmentsonmicrobiomecompositionintwohalophytesuaedaspecies
AT wangzhiyong differencesbetweentheeffectsofplantspeciesandcompartmentsonmicrobiomecompositionintwohalophytesuaedaspecies
AT huangxiufang differencesbetweentheeffectsofplantspeciesandcompartmentsonmicrobiomecompositionintwohalophytesuaedaspecies
AT zhoufangzhen differencesbetweentheeffectsofplantspeciesandcompartmentsonmicrobiomecompositionintwohalophytesuaedaspecies
AT yanshaopeng differencesbetweentheeffectsofplantspeciesandcompartmentsonmicrobiomecompositionintwohalophytesuaedaspecies
AT liuxiaopeng differencesbetweentheeffectsofplantspeciesandcompartmentsonmicrobiomecompositionintwohalophytesuaedaspecies