Deciphering the Effects of Microbiome on Plants Using Computational Methods

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Total microorganisms of a particular environment are collectively known as “microbiome.” Genome is inherited from one generation to another in the form of nucleic acids, which is unique for each organism. However, microbiome have different gene pools which altogether known as “metagenome.” Genome of any organism is static; in contrast, microbiome is highly dynamic and fluctuates rapidly over the time, influenced by many biotic and abiotic factors; different life processes such as aging, disease conditions, climate changes, and nutrition supply; etc. To understand the positive and negative effects of these shifts in the original microbiome structure and functioning, and their possible impacts on plant physiology, in silico biology has contributed significantly. Modern approaches of computational biology have provided deep insights about the plant-microbe interactions. Here in this chapter, we are focusing on the role of computational biology and molecular plant/microbial physiology in revealing the impacts of microbiomes on plant production and physiology.

Keywords

Microbiome In silico biology Metagenome Computational biology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alarcón A, Davies FT, Autenrieth RL, Zuberer DA (2008) Arbuscular mycorrhiza and petroleum-degrading microorganisms enhance phytoremediation of petroleum contaminated soil. Int J Phytoremediation 10:251–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreote FD, Gumiere T, Durrer A (2014) Exploring interactions of plant microbiomes. Sci Agric 71(6):528–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arslan M, Afzal M, Amin I, Iqbal S, Khan QM (2014) Nutrients can enhance the abundance and expression of alkane hydroxylase CYP153 gene in the rhizosphere of ryegrass planted in hydrocarbon-polluted soil. PLoS One 9(10):e111208CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Auiar-Pulido V, Huang W, Suarez-Ulloa V, Cickovski T, Mathee K, Narasimhan G (2015) Metagenomics, metatranscriptomics, and metabolomics approaches for microbiome analysis. Evol Bioinforma 1(1):5–16Google Scholar
  5. Bezerra MA, Santelli RE, Oliveira EP, Villar LS, Escaleira LA (2008) Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta 76(5):965–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bharti N, Pandey SS, Barnawal D, Patel VK, Kalra A (2016) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Dietzia natronolimnaea modulates the expression of stress responsive genes providing protection of wheat from salinity stress. Sci Rep 6:34768CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruto M, Prigent-Combaret C, Muller D, Moenne-Loccoz Y (2014) Analysis of genes contributing to plant-beneficial functions in plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and related proteobacteria. Sci Rep 4:e6261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen X, Wu C, Tang J, Hu S (2005) Arbuscular mycorrhizae enhance metal lead uptake and growth of host plants under a sand culture experiment. Chemosphere 60:665–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Culman SW, Gauch HG, Blackwood CB, Thies JE (2008) Analysis of T-RFLP data using analysis of variance and ordination methods: a comparative study. J Microbiol Methods 75:55–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. De La Torre-Roche R, Hawthorne J, Deng Y, Xing B, Cai W, Newman LA (2012) Fullerene-enhanced accumulation of p,p0 -DDE in agricultural crop species. Environ Sci Technol 46:9315–9323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards J, Johnson C, Medellín CS, Lurie E, Podishetty NK, Bhatnagar S, Eisen JA, Sundaresan V (2014) Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(8):E911–E920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Escalante-Espinosa E, Gallegos-Martínez ME, Favela-Torres E, Gutiérrez-Rojas M (2005) Improvement of the hydrocarbon phytoremediation rate by Cyperus laxus Lam. inoculated with a microbial consortium in a model system. Chemosphere 59:405–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferreira GL, dos Santos DN, Oliva G, Andricopulo AD (2015) Molecular docking and structure-based drug design strategies. Molecules 20:13384–13421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Germaine KJ, Liu X, Cabellos GG, Hogan JP, Ryan D, Dowling DN (2006) Bacterial endophyte enhanced phytoremediation of the organochlorine herbicide 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 57:302–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Germaine KJ, Keogh E, Ryan D, Dowling DN (2009) Bacterial endophyte-mediated naphthalene phytoprotection and phytoremediation. FEMS Microbiol Lett 296:226–234Google Scholar
  16. Gohre V, Paszkowski U (2006) Contribution of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis to heavy metal phytoremediation. Planta 223(6):1115–1122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Handelsman J (2004) Metagenomics: application of genomics to uncultured microorganisms. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68(4):669–685CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassan SD, Bell TH, Stefani FO, Denis D, Hijri M, St-Arnaud M (2014) Contrasting the community structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi from hydrocarbon-contaminated and uncontaminated soils following willow (Salix spp. L.) planting. PLoS One 9:e102838CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Kidd P, Mench M, Álvarez-López V, Bert V, Dimitriou I, Friesl-Hanl W (2015) Agronomic practices for improving gentle remediation of trace element-contaminated soils. Int J Phytoremediation 17:1005–1037CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu L, Jiang CY, Liu XY, Wu JF, Han JG, Liu SJ (2007) Plant-microbe association for rhizoremediation of chloronitroaromatic pollutants with Comamonas sp. strain CNB-1. Environ Microbiol 9:465–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lou Y, Clay AS, Davis AS, Dille A, Felix J, Ramirez AHM, Sprague CL, Yannarell AC (2014) An affinity effect relationship of microbial communities in plant soil feedback loop. Microb Ecol 67(4):866–876CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Lucas R, Kuchenbuch A, Fetzer I, Harms H, Kleinsteuber S (2015) Long-term monitoring reveals stable and remarkably similar microbial communities in parallel full-scale biogas reactors digesting energy crops. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 91:fiv004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lundberg DS, Lebeis SL, Paredes SH, Yourstone S, Gehring J, Malfatti S (2012) Defining the core Arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome. Nature 488:86–90CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Mench M, Lepp N, Bert V, Schwitzguébel JP, Gawronski S, Schröder P (2010) Successes and limitations of phytotechnologies at field scale: outcomes, assessment and outlook from COST Action 859. J Soil Sediment 10:1039–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mendes R, Kruijt M, Bruijn I, Dekkers E, Voort MVD, Schneider JHM, Piceno YM, DeSantis TZ, Andersen GL, Bakker PA, Raaijmakers JM (2011) Deciphering the rhizosphere microbiome for disease-suppressive bacteria. Science 332:1097CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mendes LW, Tsai SM, Navarrete AA, Hollander M, Veen AJ, Kuramae EE (2015) Soil-borne microbiome: linking diversity to function. Microb Ecol 70:255–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Muller DB, Vogel C, Bai Y, Vorholt JA (2016) The plant microbiota: systems-level insights and perspectives. Annu Rev Genet 50(9):1–24Google Scholar
  28. Nakamura T, Motoyama T, Suzuki Y, Yamaguchi I (2004) Biotransformation of pentachlorophenol by Chinese chive and a recombinant derivative of its rhizosphere-competent microorganism, Pseudomonas gladioli M-2196. Soil Biol Biochem 35:787–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Naveed M, Ahmed I, Khalid N, Mumtaz AZ (2014) Bioinformatics based structural characterization of glucose dehydrogenase (gdh) gene and growth promoting activity of Leclercia sp. QAU-66. Braz J Microbiol 45(2):603–611Google Scholar
  30. Pagé AP, Yergeau É, Greer CW (2015) Salix purpurea stimulates the expression of specific bacterial xenobiotic degradation genes in a soil contaminated with hydrocarbons. PLoS One 10(7):e0132062CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Panke-Buisse K, Poole AC, Goodrich JK, Ley RE, Kao-Kniffin J (2015) Selection of soil microbiomes reveals reproducible impacts on plant functions. ISME J 9:980–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Peiffer JA, Spor A, Koren O, Jin Z, Tring SG, Dangl JL, Buckler ES, Ley RE (2013) Diversity and heritability of the maize rhizosphere microbiome under field conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(16):6548–6553CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Pinzón A, Barreto E, Bernal A, Achenie L, Barrios AFG, Isea R, Restrepo S (2009) Computational models in plant-pathogen interactions: the case of Phytophthora infestans. Theor Biol Med Model 6(24):1–11Google Scholar
  34. Radwan SS, Dashti N, El-Nemr IM (2005) Enhancing the growth of Vicia faba plants by microbial inoculation to improve their phytoremediation potential for oily desert areas. Int J Phytoremediation 7:19–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rózsa L, Apari P, Müller V (2014) The microbiome mutiny hypothesis: can our microbiome turn against us when we are old or seriously ill? Biol Direct 10:1–9Google Scholar
  36. Sheng XF, Gong JX (2006) Increased degradation of phenanthrene in soil by Pseudomonas sp. GF3 in the presence of wheat. Soil Biol Biochem 38:2587–2592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheng XF, He LY, Zhou L, Shen YY (2009) Characterization of Microbacterium sp. F10a and its role in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon removal in low temperature soil. Can J Microbiol 55(5):529–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Taghavi S, Barac T, Greenberg B, Borremans B, Vangronsveld J, van der Lelie D (2005) Horizontal gene transfer to endogenous endophytic bacteria from poplar improves phytoremediation of toluene. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8500–8505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Urban M, Irvine AG, Cuzick A, Hammond-Kosack KE (2015) Using the pathogen-host interactions database (PHI-base) to investigate plant pathogen genomes and genes implicated in virulence. Front Plant Sci 6:605CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Vangronsveld J, Herzig R, Weyens N, Boulet J, Adriaensen K, Ruttens A (2009) Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater: lessons from the field. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:765–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yuan J, Zhu M, Iqball MJ, Yang JY, Lightfoot DA (2007) Computational approach to understand Arabidopsis thaliana and soybean resistance to Fusarium solani (Fsg). 7th IEEE international conference on bioinformatics and bioengineering, p 586–592Google Scholar
  42. Zhao H, Li M, Fang K, Chen W, Wang J (2012) In silico insights into the symbiotic nitrogen fixation in Sinorhizobium meliloti via metabolic reconstruction. PLoS One 7(2):–e31287Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MicrobiologyCCS Haryana Agricultural UniversityHisarIndia
  2. 2.Microbial Technology DepartmentCSIR-Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (CIMAP)LucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations