Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Nov 11;9(11):e112763.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112763. eCollection 2014.

Bacterial endophytic communities in the grapevine depend on pest management

Affiliations

Bacterial endophytic communities in the grapevine depend on pest management

Andrea Campisano et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Microbial plant endophytes are receiving ever-increasing attention as a result of compelling evidence regarding functional interaction with the host plant. Microbial communities in plants were recently reported to be influenced by numerous environmental and anthropogenic factors, including soil and pest management. In this study we used automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis (ARISA) fingerprinting and pyrosequencing of 16S rDNA to assess the effect of organic production and integrated pest management (IPM) on bacterial endophytic communities in two widespread grapevines cultivars (Merlot and Chardonnay). High levels of the dominant Ralstonia, Burkholderia and Pseudomonas genera were detected in all the samples We found differences in the composition of endophytic communities in grapevines cultivated using organic production and IPM. Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) assigned to the Mesorhizobium, Caulobacter and Staphylococcus genera were relatively more abundant in plants from organic vineyards, while Ralstonia, Burkholderia and Stenotrophomonas were more abundant in grapevines from IPM vineyards. Minor differences in bacterial endophytic communities were also found in the grapevines of the two cultivars.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: Livio Antonielli is employed by a commercial company Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multivariate analysis of beta-diversity: two-dimensional scatter plots of endophytic community composition in vineyards.
A: PCoA of B-ARISA markers; B: CAP of B-ARISA markers; C: PCoA of 16S rDNA data; D: CAP of 16S rDNA markers. Ellipses and triangles represent samples from IPM and organic vineyards respectively; samples taken from Merlot and Chardonnay cvs are shown in red and green respectively.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Microbial community analysis plots based on 16S rDNA pyrosequencing.
A: alpha diversity metrics based on observed OTUs, richness (Chao's richness and Abundance-Based Coverage estimators) and diversity (Shannon's and Simpson's diversity indices) B: histogram representing taxonomic composition and relative abundance (over 2%) at family and genus level for each cultivar in each treatment.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tree of life including representative endophytic OTUs in this work.
OTU colour represents phylum (see in-picture legend). Relative rarefied abundances are reported as concentric histograms. OC: Organic Chardonnay; OM: Organic Merlot; IC: IPM Chardonnay; IM: IPM Merlot.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Networks representing sample/OTU interaction.
In both networks edge visibility (line width and opacity) is enhanced based on eweights, to better highlight the most relevant connections. A: sample nodes are shown according to grapevine cultivar (yellow: Chardonnay; blue: Merlot), OTU nodes are white, with edges indicated according to pest management type (red: IPM; green: organic production). B: sample nodes are indicated according to pest management type (red: IPM; green: organic production), OTU nodes are white, with edges indicated according to taxonomic assignment at phylum level (colour legend as for Fig. 3). C: zoomed in view of Figure 4B, with eweight significance for edge visibility emphasised.

References

    1. Zabalgogeazcoa I (2008) Fungal endophytes and their interaction with plant pathogens. Span J Agric Res 6: 138–146.
    1. Hallmann J, QuadtHallmann A, Mahaffee WF, Kloepper JW (1997) Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Can J Microbiol 43: 895–914.
    1. Moy M, Li HJM, Sullivan R, White JF, Belanger FC (2002) Endophytic fungal beta-1,6-glucanase expression in the infected host grass. Plant Physiol 130: 1298–1308. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Compant S, Clement C, Sessitsch A (2010) Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizo- and endosphere of plants: Their role, colonization, mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization. Soil Biol Biochem 42: 669–678.
    1. Burke C, Steinberg P, Rusch D, Kjelleberg S, Thomas T (2011) Bacterial community assembly based on functional genes rather than species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 14288–14293. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources