4.7 Article

High abundance of Ralstonia solanacearum changed tomato rhizosphere microbiome and metabolome

期刊

BMC PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12870-020-02365-9

关键词

Rhizosphere soil microbiome; Rhizosphere metabolome; Ralstonia solanacearum; Pathogen abundance; Co-occurrence network

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20170724]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [KJQN202017]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of China [31902107]
  4. National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents [BX201600075]
  5. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest: integrated management technology of crop wilt disease [201503110]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Rhizosphere microbiome is dynamic and influenced by environment factors surrounded including pathogen invasion. We studied the effects of Ralstonia solanacearum pathogen abundance on rhizosphere microbiome and metabolome by using high throughput sequencing and GC-MS technology. Results There is significant difference between two rhizosphere bacterial communities of higher or lower pathogen abundance, and this difference of microbiomes was significant even ignoring the existence of pathogen. Higher pathogen abundance decreased the alpha diversity of rhizosphere bacterial community as well as connections in co-occurrence networks. Several bacterial groups such as Bacillus and Chitinophaga were negatively related to the pathogen abundance. The GC-MS analysis revealed significantly different metabolomes in two groups of rhizosphere soils, i.e., the rhizosphere soil of lower harbored more sugars such as fructose, sucrose and melibiose than that in high pathogen abundance. Conclusions The dissimilar metabolomes in two rhizosphere soils likely explained the difference of bacterial communities with Mantel test. Bacillus and Chitinophaga as well as sugar compounds negatively correlated with high abundance of pathogen indicated their potential biocontrol ability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据