Journal of Microbiology

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 910–915 | Cite as

Fungal community associated with genetically modified poplar during metal phytoremediation

  • Moonsuk Hur
  • Young Woon Lim
  • Jae Jeong Yu
  • Se Uk Cheon
  • Young Im Choi
  • Seok-Hwan Yoon
  • Sang-Cheol Park
  • Dong-Il Kim
  • Hana Yi
Articles

Abstract

Due to the increasing demand for phytoremediation, many transgenic poplars have been developed to enhance the bioremediation of heavy metals. However, structural changes to indigenous fungal communities by genetically modified organisms (GMO) presents a major ecological issue, due to the important role of fungi for plant growth in natural environments. To evaluate the effect of GM plant use on environmental fungal soil communities, extensive sequencing-based community analysis was conducted, while controlling the influence of plant clonality, plant age, soil condition, and harvesting season. The rhizosphere soils of GM and wild type (WT) poplars at a range of growth stages were sampled together with unplanted, contaminated soil, and the fungal community structures were investigated by pyrosequencing the D1/D2 region of the 28S rRNA gene. The results show that the overall structure of the rhizosphere fungal community was not significantly influenced by GM poplars. However, the presence of GM specific taxa, and faster rate of community change during poplar growth, appeared to be characteristic of the GM plant-induced effects on soil-born fungal communities. The results of this study provide additional information about the potential effects of GM poplar trees aged 1.5–3 years, on the soil fungal community.

Keywords

fungal community GMO phytoremediation metal contamination NGS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

12275_2012_2491_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (107 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 196 KB.

References

  1. Ashida, J. 1965. Adaptation of fungi to metal toxicants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.3, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, R., Behrendt, U., Hommel, B., Kropf, S., and Ulrich, A. 2008. Effects of transgenic fructan-producing potatoes on the community structure of rhizosphere and phyllosphere bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.66, 411–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cherian, S. and Oliveira, M.M. 2005. Transgenic plants in phytoremediation: recent advances and new possibilities. Environ. Sci. Technol.39, 9377–9390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, Y.I., Noh, E.W., Lee, H.S., Han, M.S., Lee, J.S., and Choi, K.S. 2007. Mercury-tolerant transgenic poplars expressing two bacterial mercury-metabolizing genes. J. Plant Biol.50, 658–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colwell, R.K. and Coddington, J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B.345, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrad, R. 1996. Soil microorganisms as controllers of atmospheric trace gases (H2, CO, CH4, OCS, N2O, and NO). Microbiol. Rev.60, 609–640.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gadd, G.M. 1993. Interaction of fungi with toxic metals. New Phytol.124, 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gehring, C.A., Mueller, R.C., and Whitham, T.G. 2006. Environmental and genetic effects on the formation of ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal associations in cottonwoods. Oecologia149, 158–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gottel, N.R., Castro, H.F., Kerley, M., Yang, Z.M., Pelletier, D.A., Podar, M., Karpinets, T., Uberbacher, E., Tuskan, G.A., Vilgalys, R., andet al. 2011. Distinct microbial communities within the endosphere and rhizosphere of Populus deltoides roots across contrasting soil types. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.77, 5934–5944.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gross, S. and Robbins, E.I. 2000. Acidophilic and acid-tolerant fungi and yeasts. Hydrobiologia433, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamady, M., Lozupone, C., and Knight, R. 2010. Fast UniFrac: facilitating high-throughput phylogenetic analyses of microbial communities including analysis of pyrosequencing and Phylo-Chip data. ISME J.4, 17–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hur, M., Kim, Y., Song, H.R., Kim, J.M., Choi, Y.I., and Yi, H. 2011. Effect of genetically modified poplars on soil microbial communities during the phytoremediation of waste mine tailings. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.77, 7611–7619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huson, D.H., Auch, A.F., Qi, J., and Schuster, S.C. 2007. MEGAN analysis of metagenomic data. Genome Res.17, 377–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeon, Y.S., Chung, H., Park, S., Hur, I., Lee, J.H., and Chun, J. 2005. jPHYDIT: a JAVA-based integrated environment for molecular phylogeny of ribosomal RNA sequences. Bioinformatics21, 3171–3173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karlinski, L., Rudawska, M., Kieliszewska-Rokicka, B., and Leski, T. 2010. Relationship between genotype and soil environment during colonization of poplar roots by mycorrhizal and endophytic fungi. Mycorrhiza20, 315–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar, S., Nei, M., Dudley, J., and Tamura, K. 2008. MEGA: a biologist-centric software for evolutionary analysis of DNA and protein sequences. Brief. Bioinform.9, 299–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li, W. and Godzik, A. 2006. Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics22, 1658–1659.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lodge, D.J. 1989. The influence of soil-moisture and flooding on formation of Va-endomycorrhizae and ectomycorrhizae in populus and salix. Plant Soil117, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lottmann, J., O’Callaghan, M., Baird, D., and Walter, C. 2010. Bacterial and fungal communities in the rhizosphere of field-grown genetically modified pine trees (Pinus radiata D.). Environ. Biosafety Res.9, 25–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oliver, K.L., Hamelin, R.C., and Hintz, W.E. 2008. Effects of transgenic hybrid aspen overexpressing polyphenol oxidase on rhizosphere diversity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.74, 5340–5348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raven, P.H., Evert, R.F., and Eichhorn, S.E. 1992. Biology of Plants. Worth Publishers, New York, N.Y., USA.Google Scholar
  22. Rugh, C.L., Senecoff, J.F., Meagher, R.B., and Merkle, S.A. 1998. Development of transgenic yellow poplar for mercury phytoremediation. Nat. Biotechnol.16, 925–928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saitou, N. and Nei, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol.4, 406–425.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Stefani, F.O., Moncalvo, J.M., Seguin, A., Berube, J.A., and Hamelin, R.C. 2009. Impact of an 8-year-old transgenic poplar plantation on the ectomycorrhizal fungal community. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.75, 7527–7536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thompson, J.D., Gibson, T.J., and Higgins, D.G. 2002. Multiple sequence alignment using ClustalW and ClustalX. In Curr Protoc Bioinformatics, pp. 2.3.1–2.3.22.Google Scholar
  26. Van der Auwera, G., Chapelle, S., and De Wachter, R. 1994. Structure of the large ribosomal subunit RNA of Phytophthora megasperma, and phylogeny of the oomycetes. FEBS Lett.338, 133–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weinert, N., Meincke, R., Gottwald, C., Heuer, H., Gomes, N.C., Schloter, M., Berg, G., and Smalla, K. 2009. Rhizosphere communities of genetically modified zeaxanthin-accumulating potato plants and their parent cultivar differ less than those of different potato cultivars. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.75, 3859–3865.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolfenbarger, L.L. and Phifer, P.R. 2000. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science290, 2088–2093.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Microbiological Society of Korea and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moonsuk Hur
    • 1
  • Young Woon Lim
    • 2
  • Jae Jeong Yu
    • 1
  • Se Uk Cheon
    • 1
  • Young Im Choi
    • 3
  • Seok-Hwan Yoon
    • 2
  • Sang-Cheol Park
    • 2
  • Dong-Il Kim
    • 4
  • Hana Yi
    • 5
  1. 1.Nakdong River Environment Research CenterNational Institute of Environmental ResearchGoryeong-gumRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Biotechnology DivisionKorea Forest Research InstituteSuwonRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Biological EngineeringInha UniversityIncheonRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Department of Environmental HealthKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations