Effects of Insect-Resistant Maize HGK60 on Community Diversity of Bacteria and Fungi in Rhizosphere Soil
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Illumina NovaSeq Sequencing Analysis of Rhizosphere Bacterial and Fungal Communities
2.2. Richness and Diversity of Rhizosphere Bacteria
2.3. Bacterial Community Composition
2.4. Richness and Diversity of Rhizosphere Fungus
2.5. Fungal Community Composition
2.6. Effects of Cultivars and Growth Stages on the Rhizosphere Bacterial and Fungal Communities
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Plant and Soil Materials
4.2. Total DNA Extraction, Amplification, and Illumina NovaSeq Sequencing
4.3. Sequences Processing and Bioinformatics Analysis
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2019. (ISAAA Brief No. 55); ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/55/default.asp/ (accessed on 15 September 2022).
- Lu, B.R.; Yang, X.; Ellstrand, N.C. Fitness correlates of crop transgene flow into weedy populations: A case study of weedy rice in China and other examples. Evol. Appl. 2016, 9, 857–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mao, J.; Sun, X.; Cheng, J.H.; Shi, Y.J.; Wang, X.Z.; Qin, J.J.; Sang, Z.H.; He, K.; Xia, Q. A 52-week safety study in cynomolgus macaques for genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab/1Ac protein. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2016, 95, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Domingo, J.L. Safety assessment of GM plants: An updated review of the scientific literature. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2016, 95, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, C.H.; Wang, P.; Zhao, H.; Xu, X.H.; Zhu, Y.D. Impact of allelochemical exuded from allelopathic rice on soil microbial community. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 1862–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trevors, J.T.; Kuikman, P.; Watson, B. Transgenic plants and biogeochemical cycles. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 1994, 3, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coskun, D.; Britto, D.T.; Shi, W.; Kronzucker, H.J. How plant root exudates shape the nitrogen cycle. Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, W. Influence of transgenic ath-miR399d tomato lines on microbial community and diversity in rhizosphere soil. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 61, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liang, J.; Jiao, Y.; Luan, Y.; Sun, S.; Wu, C.; Wu, H.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, H.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, Z. A 2-year field trial reveals no significant effects of GM high-methionine soybean on the rhizosphere bacterial communities. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 34, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, W.; Hao, H.L.; Wu, W.; Qi, K.W.; Ying, X.C.; Thies, J.E. Transgenic Bt rice does not affect enzyme activities and microbial composition in the rhizosphere during crop development. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.N.; Su, J.; Chen, R.; Lin, Y.; Wang, F. Diversity of Microbial Community in a Paddy Soil with cry1Ac/cpti Transgenic Rice. Pedosphere 2014, 24, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohn, S.I.; Oh, Y.J.; Kim, B.Y.; Cho, H.S. Effects of CaMSRB2—expressing transgenic rice cultivation on soil microbial communities. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 26, 1303–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, P.; Dong, J.; Yang, S.; Bai, L.; Wang, J.; Wu, G.; Wu, X.; Yao, Q.; Tang, X. Impact of β-carotene transgenic rice with four synthetic genes on rhizosphere enzyme activities and bacterial communities at different growth stages. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2014, 65, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Xiao, X.; Huang, H.; Jing, J.; Zhao, H.; Wang, L.; Long, X.E. Contrasting beneficial and pathogenic microbial communities across consecutive cropping fields of greenhouse strawberry. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 5717–5729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, F.; Wang, J.; Chen, Z.; Feng, Y.; Chi, G.; Rehman, S.U. Assessment of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community in roots and rhizosphere soils of Bt corn and their non-Bt isolines. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 2473–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, H.; Zhong, W.; Tan, F.; Shu, Y.; Feng, Y.; Wang, J. The Influence of Bt Maize Cultivation on Communities of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Revealed by MiSeq Sequencing. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 3275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zuo, L.H.; Yang, R.L.; Zhen, Z.X.; Liu, J.X.; Huang, L.S.; Yang, M.S. A 5-year feld study showed no apparent effect of the Bt transgenic 741 poplar on the arthropod community and soil bacterial diversity. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, H.; Xie, M.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, Q. Transgenic Bt cotton tissues have no apparent impact on soil microorganisms. Plant Soil Environ. 2013, 59, 366–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, W.; Zhang, M.; Ding, G. Effect of transgenic Bt cotton on bioactivities and nutrients in rhizosphere soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 689–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velmourougane, K.; Sahu, A. Impact of transgenic cottons expressing Cry1Ac on soil biological attributes. Plant Soil Environ. 2013, 59, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhou, X.L.; Liang, J.G.; Luan, Y.; Song, X.Y.; Zhang, Z.G. The influence of genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant maize CC-2 on rhizosphere bacterial communities revealed by MiSeq sequencing. Plant Soil Environ. 2020, 66, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, J.; Meng, F.; Sun, S.; Wu, C.; Wu, H.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, H.; Zheng, X.; Song, X.; Zhang, Z. Community Structure of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Rhizospheric Soil of a Transgenic High-Methionine Soybean and a Near Isogenic Variety. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0145001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, X.; Liu, Q.; Xie, S.; Jiang, Y.; Yang, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, M. Response of Soil Fungal Community to Drought-Resistant Ea-DREB2B Transgenic Sugarcane. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 562775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Urbina, H.; Breed, M.F.; Zhao, W.; Lakshmi, G.K.; Andersson, S.G.E.; Agren, J.; Baldauf, S.; Rosling, A. Specificity in Arabidopsis thaliana recruitment of root fungal communities from soil and rhizosphere. Fungal Biol. 2018, 122, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinkellner, S.; Hage-Ahmed, K.; García-Garrido, J.M.; Illana, A.; Ocampo, J.A.; Vierheilig, H. A comparison of wild-type, old and modern tomato cultivars in the interaction with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae and the tomato pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Mycorrhiza 2012, 22, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giovannetti, M.; Avio, L.; Khachatourians, G.G.; Arora, D.K. Biotechnology of arbuscular mycorrhizas. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 2, 275–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaparro, J.M.; Badri, D.V.; Vivanco, J.M. Rhizosphere microbiome assemblage is affected by plant development. ISME J. 2014, 8, 790–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lundin, D.; Severin, I.; Logue, J.B.; Ostman, O.; Andersson, A.F.; Lindström, E.S. Which sequencing depth is sufficient to describe patterns in bacterial α- and β-diversity? Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2012, 4, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Du, M.; Liu, P.; Tang, Y.; Li, H.; Yuan, Q.; Ruan, Y.; Meng, L.; Zhang, J.; Lin, M.; et al. Alternation of soil bacterial and fungal communities by tomato–rice rotation in Hainan Island in Southeast of China. Arch Microbiol. 2021, 203, 913–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, X.; Zeng, X.; Huang, S.Q.; Liang, J.S.; Dong, L.Y.; Wei, Y.N.; Li, Y.; Qu, J.J.; Wang, Z.H. Marginal impact of cropping BADH transgenic maize BZ-136 on chemical property, enzyme activity, and bacterial community diversity of rhizosphere soil. Plant Soil 2019, 436, 527–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haq, I.U.; Zhang, M.; Yang, P.; van Elsas, J.D. The interactions of bacteria with fungi in soil: Emerging concepts. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 89, 185–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Arafat, Y.; Lin, W. Studies on fungal communities and functional guilds shift in tea continuous cropping soils by high-throughput sequencing. Ann. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, X.Z.; Rui, J.P.; Xiong, J.B.; Li, J.B.; He, Z.L.; Zhou, J.Z.; Yannarell, A.C.; Mackie, R.I. Functional potential of soil microbial communities in the maize rhizosphere. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e112609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- García-Salamanca, A.; Molina-Henares, M.A.; van Dillewijn, P.; Solano, J.; Pizarro-Tobías, P.; Roca, A.; Duque, E.; Ramos, J.L. Bacterial diversity in the rhizosphere of maize and the surrounding carbonate-rich bulk soil. Microb. Biotechnol. 2013, 6, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Powell, J.R.; Rillig, M.C. Biodiversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecosystem function. New Phytol. 2018, 220, 1059–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liang, M.; Liu, X.; Etienne, R.S.; Huang, F.; Wang, Y.; Yu, S. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi counteract the Janzen-Connell effect of soil pathogens. Ecology 2015, 96, 562–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyer, L.R.; Brain, P.; Xu, X.M.; Jeffries, P. Inoculation of drought stressed strawberry with a mixed inoculum of two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: Effects on population dynamics of fungal species in roots and consequential plant tolerance to water deficiency. Mycorrhiza 2015, 25, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuccarini, P.; Savé, R. Three species of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi confer different levels of resistance to water stress in Spinacia oleracea L. Plant Biosyst. 2016, 150, 851–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Xu, G.; Zhou, L.; Li, Y. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improve the growth and drought tolerance of Zenia insignis seedlings under drought stress. New For. 2018, 49, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doornbos, R.; van Loon, L.; Bakker, P.H.M. Impact of root exudates and plant defense signaling on bacterial communities in the rhizosphere. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Vries, F.T.; Griffiths, R.I.; Bailey, M.; Craig, H.; Girlanda, M.; Gweon, H.S.; Hallin, S.; Kaisermann, A.; Keith, A.M.; Kretzschmar, M.; et al. Soil bacterial networks are less stable under drought than fungal networks. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Jiang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Yang, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, M. Effects of drought-tolerant Ea-DREB2B transgenic sugarcane on bacterial communities in soil. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hunter, P.J.; Pink, D.A.; Bending, G.D. Cultivar-level genotype differences influence diversity and composition of lettuce (Lactuca sp.) phyllosphere fungal communities. Fungal Ecol. 2015, 17, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milling, A.; Smalla, K.; Maidl, F.X.; Schloter, M.; Munch, J.C. Effects of transgenic potatoes with an altered starch composition on the diversity of soil and rhizosphere bacteria and fungi. Plant Soil 2005, 266, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romão-Dumaresq, A.S.; Dourado, M.N.; de Lima Favaro, L.C.; Mendes, R.; Ferreira, A.; Araujo, W.L. Diversity of cultivated fungi associated with conventional and transgenic sugarcane and the interaction between endophytic Trichoderma virens and the host plant. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lu, G.H.; Tang, C.Y.; Hua, X.M.; Cheng, J.; Wang, G.H.; Zhu, Y.L.; Zhang, L.Y.; Shou, H.X.; Qi, J.L.; Yang, Y.H. Effects of an EPSPS-transgenic soybean line ZUTS31 on root-associated bacterial communities during field growth. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christ, B.; Hochstrasser, R.; Guyer, L.; Francisco, R.; Aubry, S.; Hörtensteiner, S.; Weng, J.K. Non-specific activities of the major herbicide-resistance gene BAR. Nat. Plants 2017, 3, 937–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Magoč, T.; Steven, L.S. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fadrosh, D.W.; Ma, B.; Gajer, P.; Sengamalay, N.; Ott, S.; Brotman, R.M.; Ravel, J. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16S rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Microbiome 2014, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rognes, T.; Flouri, T.; Nichols, B.; Quince, C.; Mahé, F. VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 2016, 4, e2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haas, B.J.; Gevers, D.; Earl, A.M.; Feldgarden, M.; Ward, D.V.; Giannoukos, G.; Ciulla, D.; Tabbaa, D.; Highlander, S.K.; Sodergren, E.; et al. Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Res. 2011, 21, 494–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edgar, R.C. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 2013, 10, 996–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Q.; Garrity, G.M.; Tiedje, J.M.; Cole, J.R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbio. 2007, 73, 5261–5267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Quast, C.; Pruesse, E.; Yilmaz, P.; Gerken, J.; Schweer, T.; Yarza, P.; Peplies, J.; Glöckner, F.O. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, 590–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stage | Group | OTUs | Chao1 | ACE | Shannon | Simpson | PD_Whole_Tree | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bacteria | Heading stage | HGK60 | 3536.33 ± 199.92 a | 3915.77 ± 237.40 a | 3990.06 ± 262.29 a | 10.07 ± 0.08 a | 0.997 ± 0.000 a | 279.56 ± 15.01 a |
ZD958 | 3904.33 ± 154.07 a | 4372.87 ± 253.06 a | 4421.24 ± 215.71 a | 9.94 ± 0.08 a | 0.996 ± 0.000 a | 276.69 ± 3.21 a | ||
Milk stage | HGK60 | 3567 ± 32.36 a | 3749.77 ± 40.44 a | 3987.63 ± 30.20 a | 9.55 ± 0.12 a | 0.993 ± 0.002 a | 288.78 ± 8.96 a | |
ZD958 | 3696.33 ± 92.96 a | 4296.01 ± 87.63 a | 4179.12 ± 92.09 b | 9.77 ± 0.10 a | 0.995 ± 0.001 a | 271.47 ± 11.28 a | ||
Dough stage | HGK60 | 3765.67 ± 153.82 a | 4233.33 ± 145.37 a | 4294 ± 158.83 a | 9.53 ± 0.26 a | 0.991 ± 0.003 a | 299.36 ± 12.08 a | |
ZD958 | 3808 ± 101.53 a | 4225.11 ± 156.55 a | 4303.94 ± 161.51 a | 9.53 ± 0.10 a | 0.987 ± 0.002 a | 283.70 ± 12.36 a | ||
Post-harvest stage | HGK60 | 3696.67 ± 243.22 a | 4291 ± 474.18 a | 4334.02 ± 516.9 a | 9.56 ± 0.19 a | 0.994 ± 0.001 a | 290.69 ± 19.93 a | |
ZD958 | 3567.67 ± 226.53 a | 3901.7 ± 272.47 a | 3929.24 ± 285.9 a | 9.89 ± 0.10 a | 0.995 ± 0.001 a | 261.91 ± 6.07 a | ||
Fungi | Heading stage | HGK60 | 449.67 ± 46.06 a | 507.82 ± 41.99 a | 509.96 ± 39.22 a | 5.48 ± 0.24 a | 0.952 ± 0.001 a | 133.21 ± 20.27 a |
ZD958 | 450.33 ± 58.29 a | 539.24 ± 94.82 a | 533.78 ± 84.02 a | 5.09 ± 0.3 a | 0.931 ± 0.006 a | 110.78 ± 12.82 a | ||
Milk stage | HGK60 | 487 ± 37.51 a | 602.09 ± 41.89 a | 603.37 ± 36.54 a | 5.45 ± 0.09 a | 0.944 ± 0.003 a | 144.53 ± 24 a | |
ZD958 | 493.67 ± 21.57 a | 607.99 ± 16.28 a | 606.46 ± 22.37 a | 5.47 ± 0.07 a | 0.953 ± 0.001 a | 129.14 ± 3.91 a | ||
Dough stage | HGK60 | 460.67 ± 15.63 a | 546.64 ± 34.67 a | 555.84 ± 22.91 a | 5.17 ± 0.17 a | 0.931 ± 0.015 a | 109.72 ± 13.51 a | |
ZD958 | 491.67 ± 26.31 a | 640 ± 82.26 a | 634.44 ± 68.3 a | 5.08 ± 0.06 a | 0.949 ± 0.001 a | 122.49 ± 6.22 a | ||
Post-harvest stage | HGK60 | 504.67 ± 28.45 a | 651.4 ± 49.9 a | 646.66 ± 56.59 a | 5.32 ± 0.09 a | 0.925 ± 0.007 a | 148.79 ± 16.44 a | |
ZD958 | 519.67 ± 36.9 a | 648.81 ± 45.53 a | 642.21 ± 48.03 a | 5.26 ± 0.35 a | 0.922 ± 0.036 a | 126.48 ± 8.9 a |
F. Model | R2 | Pr (>F) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Bacteria | Cultivars | 3.226 | 0.10331 | 0.001 |
Growth stages | 3.9504 | 0.28318 | 0.004 | |
Fungi | Cultivars | 1.4561 | 0.04943 | 0.149 |
Growth stages | 4.4012 | 0.30561 | 0.002 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Li, S.; Li, P.; Lang, Z. Effects of Insect-Resistant Maize HGK60 on Community Diversity of Bacteria and Fungi in Rhizosphere Soil. Plants 2022, 11, 2824. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11212824
Wang Y, Zhang M, Li S, Li P, Lang Z. Effects of Insect-Resistant Maize HGK60 on Community Diversity of Bacteria and Fungi in Rhizosphere Soil. Plants. 2022; 11(21):2824. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11212824
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Yinxiao, Mingjun Zhang, Shengyan Li, Pengcheng Li, and Zhihong Lang. 2022. "Effects of Insect-Resistant Maize HGK60 on Community Diversity of Bacteria and Fungi in Rhizosphere Soil" Plants 11, no. 21: 2824. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11212824