Functional overlap of the Arabidopsis leaf and root microbiota (original) (raw)

Accession codes

Primary accessions

BioProject

European Nucleotide Archive

Data deposits

Sequencing reads (454 16S rRNA, MiSeq 16S rRNA and WGS HiSeq reads) have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under accession numbers PRJEB11545, PRJEB11583 and PRJEB11584, and genome assemblies and annotations corresponding to the leaf, root and soil culture collections have been deposited in the BioProject database under accession numbers PRJNA297956, PRJNA297942 and PRJNA298127. Isolates have been deposited at the Leibniz Institute DSMZ-German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (https://www.dsmz.de/).

References

1. Rosenberg, E. & Xilber-Rosenberg, I. The Hologenome Concept: Human, Animal and Plant Microbiota (Springer, 2013)
2. Spor, A., Koren, O. & Ley, R. Unravelling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome. Nature Rev. Microbiol. 9, 279–290 (2011)
   Article CAS Google Scholar
3. Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. & Bakker, P. A. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 478–486 (2012)
   Article CAS Google Scholar
4. Subramanian, S. et al. Cultivating healthy growth and nutrition through the gut microbiota. Cell 161, 36–48 (2015)
   Article CAS Google Scholar
5. Delmotte, N. et al. Community proteogenomics reveals insights into the physiology of phyllosphere bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16428–16433 (2009)
   Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
6. Bulgarelli, D. et al. Revealing structure and assembly cues for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota. Nature 488, 91–95 (2012)
   Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
7. Lundberg, D. S. et al. Defining the core Arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome. Nature 488, 86–90 (2012)
   Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
8. Vorholt, J. A. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nature Rev. Microbiol. 10, 828–840 (2012)
   Article CAS Google Scholar
9. Bodenhausen, N., Horton, M. W. & Bergelson, J. Bacterial communities associated with the leaves and the roots of Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS One 8, e56329 (2013)
   Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
10. Guttman, D. S., McHardy, A. C. & Schulze-Lefert, P. Microbial genome-enabled insights into plant-microorganism interactions. Nature Rev. Genet. 15, 797–813 (2014)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
11. Horton, M. W. et al. Genome-wide association study of Arabidopsis thaliana leaf microbial community. Nat. Commun. 5, 5320 (2014)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
12. Schlaeppi, K., Dombrowski, N., Oter, R. G., Ver Loren van Themaat, E. & Schulze-Lefert, P. Quantitative divergence of the bacterial root microbiota in Arabidopsis thaliana relatives. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 585–592 (2014)
    Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
13. Edwards, J. et al. Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E911–E920 (2015)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
14. Hacquard, S. et al. Microbiota and host nutrition across plant and animal kingdoms. Cell Host Microbe 17, 603–616 (2015)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
15. Bulgarelli, D. et al. Structure and function of the bacterial root microbiota in wild and domesticated barley. Cell Host Microbe 17, 392–403 (2015)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
16. Lebeis, S. L. et al. Salicylic acid modulates colonization of the root microbiome by specific bacterial taxa. Science 349, 860–864 (2015)
    Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
17. Maignien, L., DeForce, E. A., Chafee, M. E., Eren, A. M. & Simmons, S. L. Ecological succession and stochastic variation in the assembly of Arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere communities. MBio 5, e00682–e13 (2014)
    Article Google Scholar
18. Zarraonaindia, I. et al. The soil microbiome influences grapevine-associated microbiota. MBio 6, e02527–14 (2015)
    Article Google Scholar
19. Lebeis, S. L., Rott, M., Dangl, J. L. & Schulze-Lefert, P. Culturing a plant microbiome community at the cross-Rhodes. New Phytol. 196, 341–344 (2012)
    Article Google Scholar
20. Goodman, A. L. et al. Extensive personal human gut microbiota culture collections characterized and manipulated in gnotobiotic mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 6252–6257 (2011)
    Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
21. Faure, D., Vereecke, D. & Leveau, J. J. Molecular communication in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 321, 279–303 (2009)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
22. Bais, H. P., Weir, T. L., Perry, L. G., Gilroy, S. & Vivanco, J. M. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 57, 233–266 (2006)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
23. Ramachandran, V. K., East, A. K., Karunakaran, R., Downie, J. A. & Poole, P. S. Adaptation of Rhizobium leguminosarum to pea, alfalfa and sugar beet rhizospheres investigated by comparative transcriptomics. Genome Biol. 12, R106 (2011)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
24. Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods 10, 996–998 (2013)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
25. Chi, F. et al. Ascending migration of endophytic rhizobia, from roots to leaves, inside rice plants and assessment of benefits to rice growth physiology. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 7271–7278 (2005)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
26. Chelius, M. K. & Triplett, E. W. The diversity of Archaea and Bacteria in association with the roots of Zea mays L. Microb. Ecol. 41, 252–263 (2001)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
27. Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods 7, 335–336 (2010)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
28. DeSantis, T. Z. et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 5069–5072 (2006)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
29. Caporaso, J. G. et al. PyNAST: a flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 26, 266–267 (2010)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
30. Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
31. Tritt, A., Eisen, J. A., Facciotti, M. T. & Darling, A. E. An integrated pipeline for de novo assembly of microbial genomes. PLoS One 7, e42304 (2012)
    Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
32. Li, R. et al. De novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing. Genome Res. 20, 265–272 (2010)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
33. Delcher, A. L., Harmon, D., Kasif, S., White, O. & Salzberg, S. L. Improved microbial gene identification with GLIMMER. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 4636–4641 (1999)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
34. Seemann, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
35. Overbeek, R. et al. The subsystems approach to genome annotation and its use in the project to annotate 1000 genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 5691–5702 (2005)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
36. Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 27–30 (2000)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
37. Kanehisa, M. et al. Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D199–D205 (2014)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
38. Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLOS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002195 (2011)
    Article CAS ADS MathSciNet Google Scholar
39. Wu, M. & Eisen, J. A. A simple, fast, and accurate method of phylogenomic inference. Genome Biol. 9, R151 (2008)
    Article Google Scholar
40. Sievers, F. et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 539–539 (2011)
    Article Google Scholar
41. Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 5, e9490 (2010)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
42. Dröge, J., Gregor, I. & McHardy, A. C. Taxator-tk: precise taxonomic assignment of metagenomes by fast approximation of evolutionary neighborhoods. Bioinformatics 31, 817–824 (2015)
    Article Google Scholar
43. Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C. & Wiebe, W. J. Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 6578–6583 (1998)
    Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
44. Bodenhausen, N., Bortfeld-Miller, M., Ackermann, M. & Vorholt, J. A. A synthetic community approach reveals plant genotypes affecting the phyllosphere microbiota. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004283 (2014)
    Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Lundberg, S. Lebeis, S. Herrera-Paredes, S. Biswas and J. Dangl for sharing the calcined clay utilization protocol before publication; M. Kisielow of the ETH Zurich Flow Cytometry Core Facility for help with bacterial cell sorting as well as M. Baltisberger, D. Jolic and D. Weigel for their help in finding natural Arabidopsis populations; E. Kemen and M. Agler for sharing the Illumina Mi-Seq protocol for profiling of defined communities before publication and A. Sczyrba for his advice with the genome assembly. This work was supported by funds to P.S.-L. from the Max Planck Society, a European Research Council advanced grant (ROOTMICROBIOTA), the ‘Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences’ program funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), by funds to J.A.V. from ETH Zurich (ETH Research Grant ETH-41 14-2), a grant from the Swiss National Research Foundation (310030B_152835), and a European Research Council advanced grant (PhyMo).

Author information

Author notes

1. Yang Bai, Daniel B. Müller, Girish Srinivas, Ruben Garrido-Oter, Julia A. Vorholt and Paul Schulze-Lefert: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Plant Microbe Interactions, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, 50829, Germany
   Yang Bai, Girish Srinivas, Ruben Garrido-Oter, Matthias Rott, Nina Dombrowski, Stijn Spaepen & Paul Schulze-Lefert
2. Institute of Microbiology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 8093, Switzerland
   Daniel B. Müller, Eva Potthoff, Mitja Remus-Emsermann & Julia A. Vorholt
3. Department of Algorithmic Bioinformatics, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, 40225, Germany
   Ruben Garrido-Oter
4. Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, 50829, Germany
   Ruben Garrido-Oter, Alice C. McHardy & Paul Schulze-Lefert
5. Computational Biology of Infection Research, Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, 38124, Germany
   Philipp C. Münch & Alice C. McHardy
6. Max-von-Pettenkofer Institute, Ludwig Maximilian University, German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site LMU Munich, Munich, 80336, Germany
   Philipp C. Münch
7. German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Hannover-Braunschweig, Braunschweig, 38124, Germany
   Philipp C. Münch
8. Max Planck Genome Center, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, 50829, Germany
   Bruno Hüttel

Authors

1. Yang Bai
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
2. Daniel B. Müller
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
3. Girish Srinivas
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
4. Ruben Garrido-Oter
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
5. Eva Potthoff
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
6. Matthias Rott
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
7. Nina Dombrowski
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
8. Philipp C. Münch
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
9. Stijn Spaepen
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
10. Mitja Remus-Emsermann
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
11. Bruno Hüttel
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
12. Alice C. McHardy
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
13. Julia A. Vorholt
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
14. Paul Schulze-Lefert
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.A.V. and P.S.-L. initiated, coordinated and supervised the project. Y.B., M.R., N.D. and S.S. isolated root and soil bacteria strains. Y.B. collected root material and performed culture-independent community profiling. D.B.M., E.P. and M.R.-E. collected environmental leaf material, D.B.M. and E.P. isolated leaf strains and performed culture-independent community profiling. G.S. and R.G.-O. analysed culture-independent 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing data. Y.B., D.B.M. isolated DNA and prepared samples for genome sequencing. R.G.-O., P.C.M, B.H. and A.C.M. organized the genome sequencing data. R.G.-O. assembled and annotated draft genomes and performed comparative genome analyses. Y.B. and D.B.M. performed recolonization experiments; G.S. and R.G.-O. analysed the recolonization data. Y.B., D.B.M., R.G.-O., J.A.V. and P.S.-L. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toJulia A. Vorholt or Paul Schulze-Lefert.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Culture-dependent coverage of A. thaliana root- and leaf-associated OTUs identified in several cultivation-independent studies.

a–d, The inner circle depicts taxonomic assignments of top 100 root-associated OTUs (filled dots) for the indicated phyla and families that were identified in the current (a), ref. 6 (b) and ref. 12 (c) studies with Cologne-soil-grown plants, and current leaf (d) study at locations around Tübingen and Zurich. Black squares of the outer ring highlight OTUs sharing ≥ 97% 16S rRNA gene similarity to Arabidopsis root or leaf bacterial culture collection.

Extended Data Figure 2 16S rRNA gene community profiling of phyllosphere samples from different locations.

a–d, The indicated Beta-diversity indices were calculated from leaf samples (n = 60) collected from natural A. thaliana populations growing in the areas around Tübingen and Zurich. The indicated colour code refers to sampling locations, sampling sites, sampling season, and combined or individual leaves of respective plants.

Extended Data Figure 3 _At_-RSPHERE, _At_-LSPHERE and soil bacterial culture collections.

a, _At_-RSPHERE (n = 206 isolates), a culture collection of the A. thaliana root microbiota. b, _At_-LSPHERE (n = 224 isolates), a culture collection of the A. thaliana leaf microbiota. c, Bacteria isolated from Cologne soil (n = 33 isolates). Numbers inside white circles indicate the number of bacterial isolates sharing ≥ 97% sequence identity, but isolated from independent roots, leaves and soil batches.

Extended Data Figure 4 Taxonomy overlap between A. thaliana root- and leaf-associated bacterial community from plants grown in natural soils.

a, b, Rank abundance plots of top 20 genera (a) and OTUs (b) in root bacterial communities (n = 8) from Cologne with corresponding genera detected in leaf bacterial communities (n = 60) from Zurich and Tübingen. c, d, Rank abundance plots of top 20 genera (c) and OTUs (d) in leaf bacterial communities from Zurich and Tübingen with corresponding genera detected in root bacterial communities from Cologne. Boxplot whiskers extend to the most extreme data point which is no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the upper or lower quartiles.

Extended Data Figure 5 Phylogenetic distribution of ‘carbohydrate metabolism’ genes across sequenced isolates.

a, Phylogeny of sequenced leaf (n = 206), root (n = 194) and soil (n = 32) isolates based on the concatenated alignment of the 31 conserved AMPHORA phylogenetic marker genes. The origin of each genome (leaf, root or soil) is shown by different shapes and their taxonomic affiliation (phylum level) is depicted using various colours. Shaded areas correspond to the different clusters of genomes and are annotated with their consensus taxonomy (family level). b, Relative abundance of protein coding genes classified as belonging to the KEGG general term ‘carbohydrate metabolism’, measured as percentage of annotated proteins per genome.

Extended Data Figure 6 Phylogenetic distribution of ‘xenobiotic biodegradation and metabolism’ genes across sequenced isolates.

a, Phylogeny of sequenced leaf (n = 206), root (n = 194) and soil (n = 32) isolates based on the concatenated alignment of the 31 conserved AMPHORA phylogenetic marker genes. The origin of each genome (leaf, root or soil) is shown by different shapes and their taxonomic affiliation (phylum level; class level for Proteobacteria) is depicted using various colours. Shaded areas correspond to the different clusters of genomes and are annotated with their consensus taxonomy (family level). b, Relative abundance of protein coding genes classified as belonging to the KEGG general term ‘xenobiotics biodegradation and metabolism’, measured as percentage of annotated proteins per genome.

Extended Data Figure 7 V. vinifera metagenome comparison.

a, b, Functional enrichment analysis of V. vinifera root and soil shotgun metagenomes (a; n = 47) compared to A. thaliana culture collection root and soil genomes (b; n = 432). Functional category abundances correspond to the percentage of annotated genes in each genome or metagenome sample. Boxplot whiskers extend to the most extreme data point which is no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the upper or lower quartiles.

Extended Data Figure 8 Cluster analysis of Bray–Curtis distances between groups of samples in the SynCom colonization of germ-free A. thaliana experiments.

a, Comparison of pairwise distances within input samples and between input and output samples of the RS in clay experiments. b, Comparison of pairwise distances between samples within the same cluster and between different clusters of the RS in clay experiments. c, Comparison of pairwise distances between input samples and between input and output samples of the L spray experiments. d, Comparison of pairwise distances within samples within the same cluster and between different clusters of the L spray experiments. e, Comparison of pairwise distances between samples within the same cluster and between different clusters of the leaf output across experiments. f, Comparison of pairwise distances between leaf output samples in the RSL in clay experiments and leaf output samples in the L in clay and RS in clay experiments. g, Comparison of pairwise distances between root output samples in the RSL in clay experiments and root output samples in the L in clay and RS in clay experiments. All comparisons marked with asterisks were subjected to a Student’s _t_-test (P < 0.001 in each case). L in clay was tested with 6 independently prepared SynComs (n = 6); RSL in clay experiment was tested with 3 independently prepared SynComs, each used for 3 independent inoculations (n = 9). All other experiments were tested with 6 independently prepared SynComs and each preparation was used for 3 independent inoculations (n = 18). L, leaf-derived strains; RS, root- and soil-derived strains.

Extended Data Figure 9 Similarity of rank abundances of SynCom outputs with corresponding root- and leaf-associated OTUs of plants grown in natural environments.

a–c, Rank abundance plots of SynCom root outputs (n = 69) with corresponding root-associated OTUs in natural communities (n = 8) from plants grown in the present study in Cologne soil at the taxonomic ranks of phylum (a), order (b) and family (c). d–f, Rank abundance plots of SynCom leaf outputs (n = 69) with corresponding leaf-associated OTUs in natural communities (n = 60) from plants grown in the present study around Tuebingen or Zurich at the taxonomic ranks of phylum (d), order (e) and family (f). Boxplot whiskers extend to the most extreme data point which is no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the upper or lower quartiles.

Extended Data Figure 10 Fractional contribution of _At_-LSPHERE and _At_-RPSHERE-specific OTUs and SynCom competition supports host organ-specific community assemblies.

a, Fractional contribution of _At_-LSPHERE and _At_-RPSHERE specific OTUs in the input, leaf and the root output communities in the ‘RSL in clay’ experiment (n = 9). b, c, PCoA of Bray–Curtis distances of root (b; n = 21) and leaf (c; n = 21) outputs of the ‘R in clay’, ‘RS in clay’, and ‘R spray’ SynCom experiments. R, root-derived isolates; S, soil-derived isolates; L, leaf-derived isolates. RSL in clay experiment was tested with 3 independently prepared SynComs, each used for 3 independent inoculations. All other experiments were tested with 3 independently prepared SynComs and each preparation was used for 3 independent inoculations. Boxplot whiskers extend to the most extreme data point which is no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the upper or lower quartiles.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Figures

This file contains Supplementary Figures 1-9. (PDF 9119 kb)

Supplementary Data

This zipped folder contains Supplementary Data files 1-7 and a Supplementary Data guide. (ZIP 17144 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bai, Y., Müller, D., Srinivas, G. et al. Functional overlap of the Arabidopsis leaf and root microbiota.Nature 528, 364–369 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16192

Download citation

• Received: 24 June 2015
• Accepted: 09 November 2015
• Published: 02 December 2015
• Issue Date: 17 December 2015
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16192