烟草疫霉与拮抗菌解淀粉芽胞杆菌的代谢表型差异分析

doi:10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2019.04.018

中国生物防治学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (4): 605-612.DOI: 10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2019.04.018

烟草疫霉与拮抗菌解淀粉芽胞杆菌的代谢表型差异分析

赵晓超¹, 陈乾丽^2,5, 杨双剑⁴, 刘畅^3,5, 汪汉成⁵

1. 湖北中烟工业有限责任公司, 武汉 430040;
2. 贵州大学农学院, 贵阳 550025;
3. 长江大学生命科学学院, 荆州 434025;
4. 贵州省烟草公司铜仁市公司, 铜仁 554300;
5. 贵州省烟草科学研究院, 贵阳 550081

收稿日期:2018-11-22 出版日期:2019-08-08 发布日期:2019-08-10
通讯作者: 杨双剑,博士,E-mail:157459134@qq.com;汪汉成,研究员,E-mail:xiaobaiyang126@hotmail.com。
作者简介:赵晓超,E-mail:157459134@qq.com;陈乾丽,硕士研究生,E-mail;767761826@qq.com
基金资助:
贵州省科技厅优秀青年人才培养计划（2017-5619）；贵州省科技支撑计划（2018-2356）；中国烟草总公司贵州省公司科技项目（201305，201711，201714）

Differential Analysis between Phytophthora nicotianae from Tobacco and Its Antagonistic Bacterial Bacillus amyloliquefaciens in Metabolic Phenotypic Characterization

ZHAO Xiaochao¹, CHEN Qianli^2,5, YANG Shuangjian⁴, LIU Chang^3,5, WANG Hancheng⁵

1. Hubei Zhongyan Industry Co., Ltd., Wuhan 430040, China;
2. College of Agriculture, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China;
3. College of Life Sciences, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China;
4. Guizhou Tongren Tobacco Company, Tongren 554300, China;
5. Guizhou Academy of Tobacco Science, Guiyang 550081, China

Received:2018-11-22 Online:2019-08-08 Published:2019-08-10

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 烟草疫霉是引起烟草黑胫病的植物病原菌。笔者前期获得了一株对其有明显拮抗活性的解淀粉芽胞杆菌Bacillus amyloliquefaciens。为了评价该菌株作为烟草疫霉生防菌剂的应用潜力，本文采用Biolog代谢表型技术测定并比较了其和烟草疫霉近1000种代谢表型。结果表明，2种微生物的代谢指纹图谱差异较大。烟草疫霉和解淀粉芽胞杆菌分别能代谢74%、41%的供试碳源，96%、77%的供试氮源，98%、86%的供试磷源，100%、69%的供试硫源，分别具有94、91种生物合成途径，72、95种渗透压表型，及95、94种pH代谢表型。烟草疫霉代谢的碳源、氮源、磷源及硫源种类较解淀粉芽胞杆菌多，适应的渗透压环境数量较解淀粉芽胞杆菌少。解淀粉芽胞杆菌能高效代谢，同时烟草疫霉不能或较弱代谢的特征性碳源为D-葡萄糖胺。2种微生物在生物合成途径和pH环境适应力方面的代谢活力相当，均具有脱羧酶和脱氨酶活性。研究结果为解淀粉芽胞杆菌生防菌剂的开发和其防治烟草黑胫病的应用具有一定的参考意义。

关键词: 解淀粉芽胞杆菌, 烟草疫霉, 代谢表型

Abstract: Phytophthora nicotianae is the phytopathogen that causes tobacco black shank. An antagonistic bacterial isolate Bacillus amyloliquefaciens was found in our early study, which presented high inhibition effect on P. nicotianae. In order to assess the potential application of this antagonistic bacterium, the differential analysis of metabolic phenotype between the B. amyloliquefaciens and P. nicotianae were conducted in this study. Results presented that the metabolic fingerprint of these two microorganisms were quite different. P. nicotianae and B. amyloliquefaciens metabolized 74% and 41% of the tested carbon substrates, 96% and 77% of the tested nitrogen substrates, 98% and 86% of the tested phosphorus substrates, 100% and 69% of the tested sulfur substrates, respectively. They had 94 and 91 different biosynthetic pathways, metabolized 72 and 95 different osmolyte, and could metabolize in 95 and 94 different pH environments, respectively. P. nicotianae showed stronger ability than B. amyloliquefaciens in the metabolism numbers of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur substrates, while poorer ability than B. amyloliquefaciens in osmolyte environments. The typical carbon that B. amyloliquefaciens efficiently utilized while not for P. nicotiana was D-glucosamine. They presented nearly equal metabolic abilities in both biosynthetic pathways and pH environments. They both had decarboxylase activities and deaminase activities. These results provided some valuable foundation for developing the bio-control agents of B. amyloliquefaciens against tobacco black shank.

Key words: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Phytophthora nicotianae, metabolic phenotypic characterization

中图分类号:

S476

赵晓超, 陈乾丽, 杨双剑, 刘畅, 汪汉成. 烟草疫霉与拮抗菌解淀粉芽胞杆菌的代谢表型差异分析[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2019, 35(4): 605-612.

ZHAO Xiaochao, CHEN Qianli, YANG Shuangjian, LIU Chang, WANG Hancheng. Differential Analysis between Phytophthora nicotianae from Tobacco and Its Antagonistic Bacterial Bacillus amyloliquefaciens in Metabolic Phenotypic Characterization[J]. Chinese Journal Of Biological Control, 2019, 35(4): 605-612.

参考文献

[1] Jacobi W R, Main C E, Powell N T. Influence of temperature and rainfall on the development of tobacco black shank[J]. Phytopathology, 1983, 73(2):139-143.
[2] Csinos A S, Fortnum B A, Powell N T, et al. Resistance of tobacco cultivars and candidate cultivars to Phytophthora parasitica var. nicotianae[J]. Tobacco Science, 1984, 28:153-155.
[3] Csinos A S, Minton N A. Control of tobacco black shank with combinations of systemic fungicides and nematicides or fumigants[J]. Plant Disease, 1983, 67(2):204-207.
[4] Shew H D, Lucas G B. Compendium of Tobacco Diseases[M]. Saint Paul, Minnesota:American Phytopathological Society Press, 1991, 17-20.
[5] Zhang X G, Sun W X, Guo L, et al. Genetic and pathogenic variation among tobacco black shank strains of Phytophthora parasitica var. nicotianae from the main tobacco growing in Chin[J]. Journal of Phytopathology, 2003, 151(5):259-266.
[6] Wang H C, Chen X J, Cai L T, et al. Race distribution and distribution of sensitivities to mefenoxam among isolates of Phytophthora parasitica var. nicotianae in Guizhou province of China[J]. Crop Protection, 2013, 52:136-140.
[7] Chen X H, Koumoutsi A, Scholz Romv, et al. More than anticipated -production of antibiotics and other secondary metabolities by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42[J]. Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2009, 16:14-24.
[8] Koumoutsi A, Chen X H, Vater J, et al. DegU and YczE positively regulate the synthesis of Bacillomycin D by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2007, 73:6953-6964.
[9] Bochner B R. New technologies to assess genotype-phenotype relationships[J]. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2003, 4:309-314.
[10] Bochner B R, Gadzinski P, Panomitros E. Phenotype microarrays for high-throughput phenotypic testing and assay of gene function[J]. Genome Research, 2001, 11:1246-1255.
[11] Wang H C, Huang Y F, Xia H Q, et al. Phenotypic analysis of Alternaria alternata, the causal agent of tobacco brown spot[J]. Plant Pathology Journal, 2015, 14(2):79-85.
[12] 王茂胜, 汪汉成, 黄艳飞, 等. 烟草黑胫病菌的表型组学分析[J]. 微生物学报, 2015, 55(10):1356-1363.
[13] Li W, Lu C D. Regulation of carbon and nitrogen utilization by CbrAB and NtrBC two-component systems in Pseudomonas aeruginosa[J]. Journal of Bacteriology, 2007, 189(15):5413-5420.
[14] Wang H C, Huang Y F, Xia H Q, et al. Phenotypic analysis of Alternaria alternata, the causal agent of tobacco brown spot[J]. Plant Pathology Journal, 2015, 14(2):79-85.
[15] 汪汉成, 黄艳飞, 龙明锦, 等. 烟草青枯病菌与其拮抗菌解淀粉芽胞杆菌的代谢表型差异分析[J]. 植物保护学报, 2017, 44(5):753-762.
[16] Shahidi B G H, Barkhordar B, Pakgohar N, et al. Biological control of Phytophthora drechsleri tucker, the causal agent of pistachio gummosis, under greenhouse conditions by use of actinomycetes[J]. Plant Pathology Journal, 2006, 5:20-23.
[17] Oku S, Nishiyama S, Takao Y. Selective isolation of bacteria from soil with hydrophobic materials[J]. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2011, 27:1941-1945.
[18] Wang H C, Li W H, Chen Q Y, et al. A rapid microbioassay for discovery of antagonistic bacteria for Phytophthora parasitica var. nicotianae[J]. Phytopathology, 2012, 102:267-271.
[19] Sun H Y, Wang H C, Stammler G, et al. Baseline sensitivity of populations of Phytophthora capsici from China to three carboxylic acid amide (CAA) fungicides and sequence analysis of cholinephosphotranferases from a CAA-sensitive isolate and CAA-resistant laboratory mutants[J]. Journal of Phytopathology, 2010, 158(4):244-252.
[20] Mccorkle K, Lewis R, Shew D. Resistance to Phytophthora nicotianae in tobacco breeding lines derived from variety beinhart 1000[J]. Plant Disease, 2013, 97(2):252-258.
[21] Haesaert G, Vossen J H, Custers R, et al. Transformation of the potato variety Desiree with single or multiple resistance genes increases resistance to late blight under field conditions[J]. Crop Protection, 2015, 77:163-175.
[22] Wu K, Yuan S F, Xun G H, et al. Root exudates from two tobacco cultivars affect colonization of Ralstonia solanacearum and the disease index[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2015, 141(4):667-677.
[23] Mols M, de Been M, Zwietering M H, et al. Metabolic capacity of Bacillus strains ATCC 14579 and ATCC 10987 interlinked with comparatice genomics[J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2007, 9(12):2933-2944.
[24] Oh Y K, Palsson B O, Park S M, et al. Genome-scale reconstruction of metabolic network in Bacillus subtilis based on high-throughput phenotyping and gene essentiality data[J]. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2007, 282:28791-28799.

烟草疫霉与拮抗菌解淀粉芽胞杆菌的代谢表型差异分析

Differential Analysis between Phytophthora nicotianae from Tobacco and Its Antagonistic Bacterial Bacillus amyloliquefaciens in Metabolic Phenotypic Characterization

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

联系我们

[1]	李小杰, 刘畅, 李成军, 姚晨虓, 白静科, 于冰娜, 邱睿, 陈玉国, 李淑君. 多粘类芽胞杆菌LB-9的诱变及抑菌防病效果研究[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2020, 36(5): 771-777.
[2]	郭洁心, 张育铭, 朱洪磊, 任璐, 张宝俊. 解淀粉芽胞杆菌XJ5挥发性物质抑菌活性及对苹果褐腐病防效测定[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2020, 36(4): 575-580.
[3]	赵卫松, 郭庆港, 张晓云, 王培培, 苏振贺, 胡卿, 鹿秀云, 马平, 李社增. 解淀粉芽胞杆菌PHODG36菌剂的研制及其对马铃薯黄萎病的防病增产效果[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2020, 36(3): 381-387.
[4]	李磊, 赵昱榕, 郑斐, 石延霞, 柴阿丽, 谢学文, 李宝聚. 芹菜软腐病拮抗芽胞杆菌筛选及防治效果[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2020, 36(3): 388-395.
[5]	徐丽梅, 赫丹, 王刚, 徐圣佳, 史建荣, 徐剑宏. 禾谷镰刀菌拮抗菌Bacillus amyloliquefaciens AX-3的分离鉴定及拮抗物质的鉴定[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2020, 36(1): 125-134.
[6]	姚锦爱, 黄鹏, 侯翔宇, 余德亿. 海洋细菌解淀粉芽胞杆菌BA-3在兰花的定殖及对根际微生态的影响[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2019, 35(6): 915-921.
[7]	姚锦爱, 黄鹏, 蔡鸿娇, 侯翔宇, 余德亿. 一株海洋细菌BA-3的鉴定及其对建兰尖孢镰刀菌茎腐病的防治[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2019, 35(6): 922-929.
[8]	王宝, 杨扬, 蔡吉苗, 陈奕鹏, 黄贵修. 内生解淀粉芽胞杆菌BEB33脂肽类化合物分析及对香蕉枯萎病菌拮抗作用研究[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2019, 35(5): 785-792.
[9]	赵卫松, 李社增, 鹿秀云, 张晓云, 王培培, 郭庆港, 齐永志, 董丽红, 毛晓曦, 苏振贺, 马平. 解淀粉芽胞杆菌PHODB35对小麦的促生作用及产量影响[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2019, 35(3): 399-406.
[10]	赵新贝, 王娟, 上官妮妮, 刘红彦, 马青. 番茄灰霉病生防细菌TD-7的鉴定、发酵条件优化及其防治效果[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2019, 35(2): 226-239.
[11]	林巧玲, 卢乃会, 何红, 袁越. 海洋细菌解淀粉芽胞杆菌SH-27在大豆体内的定殖动态及促生防病作用[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2019, 35(2): 240-246.
[12]	申光辉, 余国贤, 张志清, 陈安均, 黎杉珊, 刘兴艳, 吴贺君. 利用马铃薯全粉加工废水培养解淀粉芽胞杆菌产抗菌脂肽条件优化[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2019, 35(1): 89-98.
[13]	李磊, 许敏, 王美琴. 生防菌解淀粉芽胞杆菌Ht-q6可湿性粉剂的研制及对番茄病害的田间防效[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2018, 34(5): 738-745.
[14]	王玉双, 肖蓉, 郭照辉, 曾奥, 付祖姣, 杨华, 罗容珺, 胡展, 单世平, 雷平. 来源于中药的稻瘟病菌拮抗解淀粉芽胞杆菌鉴定及其活性成分特性[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2018, 34(5): 746-752.
[15]	刘泉成, 张茜茜, 田雪亮, 刘文德. 玉米根际细菌群落特征及生防菌筛选[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2018, 34(5): 771-778.