Advertisement

Tissue Microbiome of Norway Spruce Affected by Heterobasidion-Induced Wood Decay

  • Fei Ren
  • Andriy Kovalchuk
  • Mukrimin Mukrimin
  • Mengxia Liu
  • Zhen Zeng
  • Rajendra P. Ghimire
  • Minna Kivimäenpää
  • Jarmo K. Holopainen
  • Hui Sun
  • Fred O. Asiegbu
Plant Microbe Interactions

Abstract

Plants live in close association with microbial symbionts, which may affect the host fitness, productivity, and tolerance against biotic and abiotic stressors. The composition of plant microbial communities is influenced by many biotic and abiotic factors, but little is known about the effect of plant pathogens on the structure of these communities. In this study, we investigated the structure of bacterial communities associated with different tissues of asymptomatic and symptomatic (Heterobasidion-rotten) Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) trees. Our results demonstrated that each of the investigated anatomic tissues (root, bark, down stem, upper stem, and needles) harbored a unique bacterial assemblage. However, the health status of the host trees had little effect on the structure of bacterial communities, as the only significant differences among asymptomatic and symptomatic trees were found in the composition of the bacterial communities of needles. Proteobacteria was predominant in all anatomic regions with the highest abundance in needles (86.7%), whereas Actinobacteria showed an opposite trend, being more abundant in the woody tissues than in needles. Additionally, we performed profiling of terpenoid compounds present in spruce xylem and phloem. Total concentrations of monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes were considerably higher in asymptomatic trees. However, we found no significant correlations between terpenoid profiles of spruce trees and the composition of their bacterial communities. Our results provide an insight into the diversity of bacteria associated with Norway spruce tree tissues. At the same time, the health status and terpenoid content of host trees had a limited effect on the composition of bacterial communities in our survey.

Keywords

Bacterial biota Microbiome Microbial community Norway spruce Heterobasidion Host-microbe interactions Terpenoids 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge CSC–IT Center for Science, Finland, for the generous computational resources and UEF International Top Level Research Area (BORFOR) for the post-doc funding. The China Scholarship Council is also acknowledged. The research funding for Jiangsu Specially Appointed Professor (project 165010015) and Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD) are also acknowledged. This research received financial support from the Academy of Finland (No. 276862 to FOA; No. 278424 to JKH). We thank Dr. Risto Kasanen for help with field sampling.

Author Contributions

FA, HS, and AK conceived the study and contributed in the experimental design of the study; FR, AK, HS, and ZZ performed the statistical analysis; FR wrote the first draft of the manuscript; MM and ML isolated nucleic acid from the tissues. RG, MK, and JH isolated and analyzed the terpenoids. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Supplementary material

248_2018_1240_Fig6_ESM.png (121 kb)
Supplementary Fig. S1

(PNG 121 kb)

248_2018_1240_MOESM1_ESM.tif (228 kb)
High Resolution (TIF 227 kb)
248_2018_1240_Fig7_ESM.png (1.8 mb)
Supplementary Fig. S2

(PNG 1795 kb)

248_2018_1240_MOESM2_ESM.tif (2.8 mb)
High Resolution (TIF 2893 kb)
248_2018_1240_Fig8_ESM.png (121 kb)
Supplementary Fig. S3

(PNG 121 kb)

248_2018_1240_MOESM3_ESM.tif (209 kb)
High Resolution (TIF 208 kb)
248_2018_1240_Fig9_ESM.png (212 kb)
Supplementary Fig. S4

(PNG 211 kb)

248_2018_1240_MOESM4_ESM.tif (999 kb)
High Resolution (TIF 998 kb)
248_2018_1240_MOESM5_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Turner TR, James EK, Poole PS (2013) The plant microbiome. Genome Biol 14:209.  https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-6-209 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vandenkoornhuyse P, Quaiser A, Duhamel M, Le Van A, Dufresne A (2015) The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. New Phytol 206:1196–1206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13312 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berg G, Rybakova D, Grube M, Koberl M (2016) The plant microbiome explored: implications for experimental botany. J Exp Bot 67:995–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv466 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muller DB, Vogel C, Bai Y, Vorholt JA (2016) The plant microbiota: systems-level insights and perspectives. Annu Rev Genet 50:211–234.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-120215-034952 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porras-Alfaro A, Bayman P (2011) Hidden fungi, emergent properties: endophytes and microbiomes. Annu Rev Phytopathol 49:291–315.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081831 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hardoim PR, van Overbeek LS, Berg G, Pirttila AM, Compant S, Campisano A, Doring M, Sessitsch A (2015) The hidden world within plants: ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 79:293–320.  https://doi.org/10.1128/Mmbr.00050-14 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neelakanta G, Sultana H (2013) The use of metagenomic approaches to analyze changes in microbial communities. Microbiol Insights 6:37–48.  https://doi.org/10.4137/MBI.S10819 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lebeis SL (2015) Greater than the sum of their parts: characterizing plant microbiomes at the community-level. Curr Opin Plant Biol 24:82–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2015.02.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bulgarelli D, Schlaeppi K, Spaepen S, van Themaat EVL, Schulze-Lefert P (2013) Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64:807–838.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120106 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaparro JM, Badri DV, Vivanco JM (2014) Rhizosphere microbiome assemblage is affected by plant development. ISME J 8:790–803.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.196 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finkel OM, Burch AY, Lindow SE, Post AF, Belkin S (2011) Geographical location determines the population structure in phyllosphere microbial communities of a salt-excreting desert tree. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:7647–7655.  https://doi.org/10.1128/Aem.05565-11 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laforest-Lapointe I, Messier C, Kembel SW (2016) Host species identity, site and time drive temperate tree phyllosphere bacterial community structure. Microbiome 4:27.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-016-0174-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zamoum M, Goudjal Y, Sabaou N, Barakate M, Mathieu F, Zitouni A (2015) Biocontrol capacities and plant growth-promoting traits of endophytic actinobacteria isolated from native plants of Algerian Sahara. J Plant Dis Prot 122:215–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03356555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tang Q, Puri A, Padda KP, Chanway CP (2017) Biological nitrogen fixation and plant growth promotion of lodgepole pine by an endophytic diazotroph Paenibacillus polymyxa and its GFP-tagged derivative. Botany 95:611–619.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2016-0300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giordano L, Gonthier P, Varese GC, Miserere L, Nicolotti G (2009) Mycobiota inhabiting sapwood of healthy and declining Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) trees in the Alps. Fungal Divers 38:69–83Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ardanov P, Sessitsch A, Haggman H, Kozyrovska N, Pirttila AM (2012) Methylobacterium-induced endophyte community changes correspond with protection of plants against pathogen attack. PLoS One 7:e46802.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046802 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin JA, Witzell J, Blumenstein K, Rozpedowska E, Helander M, Sieber TN, Gil L (2013) Resistance to Dutch elm disease reduces presence of Xylem endophytic fungi in Elms (Ulmus spp.). PLoS One 8:e56987.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056987 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bullington LS, Lekberg Y, Sniezko R, Larkin B (2018) The influence of genetics, defensive chemistry and the fungal microbiome on disease outcome in whitebark pine trees. Mol Plant Pathol 19:1847–1858.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Asiegbu FO, Adomas A, Stenlid J (2005) Conifer root and butt rot caused by Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref. s.l. Mol Plant Pathol 6:395–409.  https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1364-3703.2005.00295.X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garbelotto M, Gonthier P (2013) Biology, epidemiology, and control of Heterobasidion species worldwide. Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:39–59.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102225 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ashour M, Wink M, Gershenzon J (2010) Biochemistry of terpenoids: monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes and diterpenes. In: Wink M (ed) Biochemistry of plant secondary metabolism2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 258–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holopainen JK, Himanen SJ, Yuan J, Chen F, Stewart CNJ (2013) Ecological functions of terpenoids and climate changes. In Natural Products. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 2913–2940Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zulak KG, Bohlmann J (2010) Terpenoid biosynthesis and specialized vascular cells of conifer defense. J Integr Plant Biol 52:86–97.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2010.00910.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kusumoto N, Zhao T, Swedjemark G, Ashitani T, Takahashi K, Borg-Karlson AK (2014) Antifungal properties of terpenoids in Picea abies against Heterobasidion parviporum. For Pathol 44:353–361.  https://doi.org/10.1111/efp.12106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kovalchuk A, Mukrimin M, Zeng Z, Raffaello T, Liu MX, Kasanen R, Sun H, Asiegbu FO (2018) Mycobiome analysis of asymptomatic and symptomatic Norway spruce trees naturally infected by the conifer pathogens Heterobasidion spp. Environ Microbiol Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12654
  26. 26.
    Chang S, Puryear J, Cairney J (1993) A simple and efficient method for isolating RNA from pine trees. Plant Mol Biol Report 11:113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Terhonen E, Marco T, Sun H, Jalkanen R, Kasanen R, Vuorinen M, Asiegbu F (2011) The effect of latitude, season and needle-age on the mycota of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) in Finland. Silva Fenn 45:301–317.  https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, Peplies J, Quast C, Horn M, Glockner FO (2013) Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res 41:e1.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks808 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Martin M (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J 17:10–12.  https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schloss PD, Gevers D, Westcott SL (2011) Reducing the effects of PCR amplification and sequencing artifacts on 16S rRNA-based studies. PLoS One 6:e27310.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027310 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sun H, Santalahti M, Pumpanen J, Köster K, Berninger F, Raffaello T, Asiegbu FO, Heinonsalo J (2016) Bacterial community structure and function shift across a northern boreal forest fire chronosequence. Sci Rep 6:e32411.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glockner FO (2013) The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41(Database):D590–D596.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heberle H, Meirelles GV, da Silva FR, Telles GP, Minghim R (2015) InteractiVenn: a web-based tool for the analysis of sets through Venn diagrams. BMC Bioinformatics 16:169.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-015-0611-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. Primer-E Limited, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Anderson M, Clarke RK (2008) Permanova+ for primer: guide to software and statistical methods. Primer-E Limited, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kainulainen P, Oksanen J, Palomäki V, Holopainen JK, Holopainen T (1992) Effect of drought and water-logging stress on needle monoterpenes of Picea abies. Can J Bot 70:1613–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ewald D, Naujoks G, Zaspel I, Szczygiel K (1997) Occurrence and influence of endogenous bacteria in embryogenic cultures of Norway spruce. In: Cassells AC (ed) Pathogen and Microbial Contamination Management in Micropropagation. Developments in Plant Pathology, 12. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Geric B, Rupnik M, Kraigher H (2000) Isolation and identification of mycorrhization helper bacteria in Norway spruce, Picea abies (L.) Karst. Phyton 40:65–70Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mergel A, Kloos K, Bothe H (2001) Seasonal fluctuations in the population of denitrifying and N-fixing bacteria in an acid soil of a Norway spruce forest. Plant Soil 230:145–160.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004826116981 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shain L (1971) The response of sapwood of Norway spruce to infection by Fomes annosus. Phytopathology 61:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Elo S, Maunuksela L, Salkinoja-Salonen M, Smolander A, Haahtela K (2000) Humus bacteria of Norway spruce stands: plant growth promoting properties and birch, red fescue and alder colonizing capacity. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 31:143–152.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2000.tb00679.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cankar K, Kraigher H, Ravnikar M, Rupnik M (2005) Bacterial endophytes from seeds of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst). FEMS Microbiol Lett 244:341–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsle.2005.02.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bai Y, Muller DB, Srinivas G, Garrido-Oter R, Potthoff E, Rott M, Dombrowski N, Munch PC, Spaepen S, Remus-Emsermann M, Huttel B, McHardy AC, Vorholt JA, Schulze-Lefert P (2015) Functional overlap of the Arabidopsis leaf and root microbiota. Nature 528:364–369.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16192 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Peiffer JA, Spor A, Koren O, Jin Z, Tringe SG, Dangl JL, Buckler ES, Ley RE (2013) Diversity and heritability of the maize rhizosphere microbiome under field conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:6548–6553.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302837110 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bulgarelli D, Garrido-Oter R, Munch PC, Weiman A, Droge J, Pan Y, McHardy AC, Schulze-Lefert P (2015) Structure and function of the bacterial root microbiota in wild and domesticated barley. Cell Host Microbe 17:392–403.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2015.01.011 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ettema TJG, Andersson SGE (2009) The alpha-proteobacteria: the Darwin finches of the bacterial world. Biol Lett 5:429–432.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0793 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rasolomampianina R, Bailly X, Fetiarison R, Rabevohitra R, Bena G, Ramaroson L, Raherimandimby M, Moulin L, De Lajudie P, Dreyfus B, Avarre JC (2005) Nitrogen-fixing nodules from rose wood legume trees (Dalbergia spp.) endemic to Madagascar host seven different genera belonging to alpha- and beta-Proteobacteria. Mol Ecol 14:4135–4146.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02730.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Carrell AA, Frank AC (2014) Pinus flexilis and Picea engelmannii share a simple and consistent needle endophyte microbiota with a potential role in nitrogen fixation. Front Microbiol 5:333.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00333 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ozen AI, Ussery DW (2012) Defining the Pseudomonas genus: where do we draw the line with Azotobacter? Microb Ecol 63:239–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-011-9914-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Köberl M, Dita M, Martinuz A, Staver C, Berg G (2017) Members of gammaproteobacteria as indicator species of healthy banana plants on Fusarium wilt-infested fields in Central America. Sci Rep 7:e45318.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pankratov TA, Tindall BJ, Liesack W, Dedysh SN (2007) Mucilaginibacter paludis gen. nov., sp. nov. and Mucilaginibacter gracilis sp. nov., pectin-, xylan- and laminarin-degrading members of the family Sphingobacteriaceae from acidic Sphagnum peat bog. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57:2349–2354.  https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-57-12-2979-a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pankratov TA, Dedysh SN (2010) Granulicella paludicola gen. nov., sp nov., Granulicella pectinivorans sp nov., Granulicella aggregans sp nov and Granulicella rosea sp nov., acidophilic, polymer-degrading acidobacteria from Sphagnum peat bogs. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 60:2951–2959.  https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.021824-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dedysh SN, Kulichevskaya IS, Serkebaeva YM, Mityaeva MA, Sorokin VV, Suzina NE, Rijpstra WI, Damsté JS (2012) Bryocella elongata gen. nov., sp. nov., a member of subdivision 1 of the Acidobacteria isolated from a methanotrophic enrichment culture, and emended description of Edaphobacter aggregans. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 62:654–664.  https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.031898-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ramirez-Bahena MH, Tejedor C, Martin I, Velazquez E, Peix A (2013) Endobacter medicaginis gen. nov., sp nov., isolated from alfalfa nodules in an acidic soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 63:1760–1765.  https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.041368-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shade A, McManus PS, Handelsman J (2013) Unexpected diversity during community succession in the apple flower microbiome. MBio 4:e00602–e00612.  https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00602-12 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Edwards J, Johnson C, Santos-Medellin C, Lurie E, Podishetty NK, Bhatnagar S, Eisen JA, Sundaresan V (2015) Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:E911–E920.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414592112 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Marupakula S, Mahmood S, Finlay RD (2016) Analysis of single root tip microbiomes suggests that distinctive bacterial communities are selected by Pinus sylvestris roots colonized by different ectomycorrhizal fungi. Environ Microbiol 18:1470–1483.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Oliva J, Thor M, Stenlid J (2010) Reaction zone and periodic increment decrease in Picea abies trees infected by Heterobasion annosum s.l. For Ecol Manag 260:692–698.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.05.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fei Ren
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andriy Kovalchuk
    • 1
  • Mukrimin Mukrimin
    • 1
    • 3
  • Mengxia Liu
    • 1
  • Zhen Zeng
    • 1
  • Rajendra P. Ghimire
    • 4
  • Minna Kivimäenpää
    • 4
  • Jarmo K. Holopainen
    • 4
  • Hui Sun
    • 5
  • Fred O. Asiegbu
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Forestry experiment center of north ChinaChinese Academy of ForestryBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of ForestryUniversitas HasanuddinMakassarIndonesia
  4. 4.Department of Environmental and Biological SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland
  5. 5.Collaborative Innovation Center of Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, College of ForestryNanjing Forestry UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations