Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 371, Issue 1–2, pp 367–376 | Cite as

Distribution of bacterial endophytes in peanut seeds obtained from axenic and control plant material under field conditions

  • V. S. SobolevEmail author
  • V. A. Orner
  • R. S. Arias
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and Aims

The role and linkage of endophytic bacteria to resistance of peanut seeds to biotic stress is poorly understood. The aims of the present study were to survey the experimental (axenic) and control (conventional) peanut plants for the predominant endophytic bacteria, and to characterize isolates with activity against selected A. flavus strains.

Methods

Young axenic plants were grown from presumably bacteria-free embryos in the lab, and then they were grown in a field. Endophytic bacterial species were identified by the analysis of DNA sequences of their 16S-ribosomal RNA gene. DNA extracted from soil was also analyzed for predominant bacteria.

Results

Mature seeds from the experimental and control plants contained several species of nonpathogenic endophytic bacteria. Among the eight bacterial species isolated from seeds, and DNA sequences detected in soil, Bacillus thuringiensis was dominant. All B. amyloliquefaciens isolates, the second abundant species in seeds demonstrated activity against A. flavus. This effect was not observed with any other bacterial isolates. There was no significant difference in number and relative occurrence of the two major bacterial species between the experimental and conventionally grown control seeds.

Conclusion

Endophytic bacterial colonization derives from local soil and not from the seed source, and the peanut plant accommodates only selected species of bacteria from diverse soil populations. Some bacterial isolates showed antibiosis against A. flavus.

Keywords

Arachis hypogaea Bacillus thuringiensis Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Endophytic bacteria Aspergillus flavus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by USDA-ARS project number 6604-42000-008-00D. We thank B. Horn for providing the strains Aspergillus flavus NRRL 3357 and NRRL 21882. We appreciate M. Schweikert’s valuable help in the isolation of bacteria from peanut seeds. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment seach tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayerst G (1969) Effects of moisture and temperature on growth and spore germination in some fungi. J Stored Prod Res 5:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacon CW, Hinton DM (2011) Bacillus mojavensis: its endophytic nature, the sufactins, and their role in the plant response to infection by Fusarium verticillioides. In: Maheshwari DK (ed) Bacteria in agrobiology: plant growth responses. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg G, Zachow C, Lottmann J, Gotz M, Costa R, Smalla K (2005) Impact of plant species and site on rhizosphere-associated fungi antagonistic to Verticillium dahliae kleb. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:4203–4213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhanumathi P, Ganesan M, Jayabalan N (2005) A simple and improved protocol for direct and indirect somatic embryogenesis of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). J Agric Technol 1:327–344Google Scholar
  6. Blankenship PD, Cole RJ, Sanders TH, Hill RA (1983) Environmental control plot facility with manipulable soil temperature. Oleagineux 38:615–620Google Scholar
  7. Dong ZM, Canny MJ, Mccully ME, Roboredo MR, Cabadilla CF, Ortega E, Rodes R (1994) A Nitrogen-fixing endophyte of sugarcane stems (a new role for the apoplast). Plant Physiol 105:1139–1147Google Scholar
  8. Dorner JW (2009) Development of biocontrol technology to manage aflatoxin contamination in peanuts. Peanut Sci 36:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drancourt A, Raoult D (2005) Sequence-based identification of new bacteria: a proposition for creation of an orphan bacterium repository. J Clin Microbiol 43:4311–4315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drancourt M, Berger P, Raoult D (2004) Systematic 16S rRNA gene sequencing of atypical clinical isolates identified 27 new bacterial species associated with humans. J Clin Microbiol 42:2197–2202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eaton DL, Groopman JD (1994) The toxicology of aflatoxins: human health, veterinary, and agricultural significance. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  12. Frommel MI, Nowak J, Lazarovits G (1993) Treatment of potato tubers with a growth-promoting Pseudomonas sp.: plant-growth responses and bacterium distribution in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 150:51–60Google Scholar
  13. Grimault V, Prior P (1994) Invasiveness of Pseudomonas solanacearum in tomato, eggplant and pepper: a comparative study. Eur J Plant Pathol 100:259–267Google Scholar
  14. Hale MG (1969) Loss of organic compounds from roots I. Cultural conditions for axenic growth of peanut, Arachis hypogaea, L. Plant Soil 31:463–472Google Scholar
  15. Hallmann J, QuadtHallmann A, Mahaffee WF, Kloepper JW (1997) Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Can J Microbiol 43:895–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill R, Blankenship P, Cole R, Sanders T (1983) The effects of soil moisture and temperature on preharvest invasion of peanuts by the Aspergillus flavus group and subsequent aflatoxin development. Appl Environ Microbiol 45:628–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang SP (1986) Penetration, development, reproduction, and sex-ratio of Meloidogyne javanica in 3 carrot cultivars. J Nematol 18:408–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kemerait B, Brenneman T, Culbreth A (2012) Peanut disease management update. 2012 Peanut Production Update. Beasley JP, ed. Bull. CSS-12-0130. Georgia Agric. Exp. Sta., Athens, GAGoogle Scholar
  19. Kishore GK, Pande S, Podile AR (2005) Phylloplane bacteria increase seedling emergence, growth and yield of field-grown groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Lett Appl Microbiol 40:260–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kloepper JW, Ryu C-M (2006) Bacterial endophytes as elicitors of induced systemic resistance. In: Shultz B, Boyle C, Sieber TN (eds) Soil biology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 33–52Google Scholar
  21. Kobayashi DY, Palumbo JD (2000) Bacterial endophytes and their effects on plants and uses in agriculture. In: White JF, Bacon CW (eds) Microbial endophytes. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 199–233Google Scholar
  22. Kong Q, Shan SH, Liu QZ, Wang XD, Yu FT (2010) Biocontrol of Aspergillus flavus on peanut kernels by use of a strain of marine Bacillus megaterium. Int J Food Microbiol 139:31–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kulshrestha R, Gupta CP, Shukla G, Kundu MG, Bhatnagar SP, Katiyar CK (2008) The effect of water activity and storage temperature on the growth of Aspergillus flavus in medicinal herbs. Planta Med 74:1308–1315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kumar A, Prakash A, Johri BN (2011) Bacillus as PGPR in crop ecosystem. In: Maheshwari DK (ed) Bacteria in agrobiology: crop ecosystems. Srpinger-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 37–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li QW, Wang ZH, Yan PS, Wu HQ (2011) Phylogenetic analysis of bacterial strains from peanut and their antifungal activities. J Converg Inform Technol 6:293–299Google Scholar
  26. Ludueña LM, Taurian T, Tonelli ML, Angelini JG, Anzuay MS, Valetti L, Muñoz V, Adriana I, Fabra AI (2012) Biocontrol bacterial communities associated with diseased peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) plants. Eur J Soil Biol 53:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mickler CJ, Bowen KL, Kloepper JW (1995) Evaluation of selected geocarposphere bacteria for biological control of Aspergillus flavus in peanut. Plant Soil 175:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nowak J, Asiedu SK, Lazarovits G, Pillay V, Stewart A, Smith C, Liu Z (1995) Enhancement of in vitro growth and transplant stress tolerance of potato and vegetable plantlets co-cultured with a plant growth promoting pseudomonad bacterium. In: Chagvardieff P, Carre F (eds) Ecophysiology and photosynthetic in vitro cultures. Comisariat a l’energie atomique, France, pp 173–179Google Scholar
  29. Ozias-Akins P (1989) Plant regeneration from immature embryos of peanut. Plant Cell Rep 8:217–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Podile AR, Laxmi VDV, Manjula K, Sailaja PR (1995) Bacillus subtilis AF1 as biocontrol PGPR: towards understanding survival and mechanism of action. In: Adholeya S, Sing S (eds) Mycorrhizae: biofertilizers for the future. TERI, New Delhi, pp 506–509Google Scholar
  31. Rasko DA, Ravel J, Ökstad OA, Helgason E, Cer RZ, Jiang L, Shores KA, Fouts DE, Tourasse NJ, Angiuoli SV, Kolonay J, Nelson WC, Kolstö AB, Fraser CM, Read TD (2004) The genome sequence of Bacillus cereus ATCC 10987 reveals metabolic adaptations and a large plasmid related to Bacillus anthracis pXO1. Nucl Acids Res 32:977–988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reddy KRN, Reddy CS, Muralidharan K (2009) Potential of botanicals and biocontrol agents on growth and aflatoxin production by Aspergillus flavus infecting rice grains. Food Contr 20:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ritz K (2007) The plate debate: cultivable communities have no utility in contemporary environmental microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 60:358–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saharan BS, Nehra V (2011) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: a critical review. Life Sci Med Res (LMSR) 21:1–30Google Scholar
  35. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning. A laboratory manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring HarborGoogle Scholar
  36. Schnepf E, Crickmore N, van Rie J, Lereclus D, Baum J, Feitelson J, Zeigler DR, Dean DH (1998) Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62:775–806PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Settaluri VS, Kandala CVK, Puppala N, Sundaram J (2012) Peanuts and their nutritional aspects - a review. Food Nutr Sci 3:1644–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shishido M, Breuil C, Chanway CP (1999) Endophytic colonization of spruce by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 29:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sobolev VS, Neff SA, Gloer JB (2009) New stilbenoids from peanut (Arachis hypogaea) seeds challenged by an Aspergillus caelatus strain. J Agric Food Chem 57:62–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys, 2nd edn. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service, Washington, D. CGoogle Scholar
  41. Sprent JI, Defaria SM (1988) Mechanisms of infection of plants by nitrogen-fixing organisms. Plant Soil 110:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tikhonovich IA, Provorov NA (2011) Microbiology is the basis of sustainable agriculture: an opinion. Ann Appl Biol 159:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tonelli ML, Taurian T, Ibanez F, Angelini J, Fabra A (2010) Selection and in vitro characterization of biocontrol agents with potential to protect peanut plants against fungal pathogens. J Plant Pathol 92:73–82Google Scholar
  44. Torsvik V, Sorheim R, Goksoyr J (1996) Total bacterial diversity in soil and sediment communities - a review. J Industr Microbiol 17:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Troller JA (1991) Trends in research related to the influence of “water activity” on microorganisms in food. Adv Exp Med Biol 302:305–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsiantos J, Stevens WA (1986) The population dynamics of Corynebacterium michiganense pv. michiganense and other selected bacteria in tomato leaves. Phytoathol Mediterr 25:160–162Google Scholar
  47. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2013) Table 13 peanut area, yield, and production. http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdreport.aspx?hidReportRetrievalName=BVS&hidReportRetrievalID=918&hidReportRetrievalTemplateID=1. Accessed 14 February 2013
  48. Williams EJ, Drexler JS (1981) A non-destructive method for determining peanut pod maturity. Peanut Sci 8:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ziedan EHE (2006) Manipulating endophytic bacteria for biological control of soil born diseases of peanut. J Appl Sci Res 2:497–502Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Peanut Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of AgricultureDawsonUSA

Personalised recommendations