The root microbiome: techniques for exploration and agricultural applications

References

• 1. Singh B, Trivedi P, Egidi E, Macdonald C, Delgado-Baquerizo M. Crop microbiome and sustainable agriculture. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 601–602 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2. Reaping economic and environmental benefits from sustainable land management. ELD Initiative Bonn, Germany (2015). https://www.eld-initiative.org/fileadmin/pdf/ELD-pm-report_05_web_300dpi.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 3. Bai B, Liu W, Qiu X, Zhang J, Bai Y. The root microbiome: community assembly and its contributions to plant fitness. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 64(2), 230–243 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4. Rana A, Saharan B, Nain L, Prasanna R, Shivay Y. Enhancing micronutrient uptake and yield of wheat through bacterial PGPR consortia. Soil Sci, Plant Nutr. 58(5), 573–582 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 5. Zhang J, Ahmed W, Dai Z et al. Microbial consortia: An engineering tool to suppress clubroot of Chinese cabbage by changing the rhizosphere bacterial community composition. Biology (Basel). 11(6), 918 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6. Singh B, Bardgette R, Smooth P, Reay D. Microorganisms and climate change: terrestrial feedbacks and mitigation options. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 779–790 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Jan S, Singh R, Bhardwaj R, Ahmad P, Kapoor D. Plant growth regulators; a sustainable approach to combat pesticide toxicity. 3 Biotech. 10(11), 466 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8. Wu P, Ma L, Hou X. Phosphate starvation triggers distinct alterations of genome expression in Arabidopsis roots and leaves. Plant Physiol. 132(3), 1260–1271 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9. Plaxton WC, Tran HT. Metablic adaptations of phosphate-starved plants. Plant Physiol. 156(3), 1006–1015 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 10. Chan C, Liao YY, Chiou TJ. The impact of phosphorus on plant immunity. Plant Cell Physiol. 24(62), 582–589 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 11. Hannula SE, Ma H, Pérez-Jaramillo JE, Pineda A, Bezemer TM. Structure and ecological function of the soil microbiome affective plant-soil feedbacks in the presence of soil-borne pathogen. Environ. Microbiol. 22(2), 660–676 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Finkel OM, Salas-González I, Castrillo G et al. The effects of soil phosphorus content on plant microbiota are driven by the plant phosphate starvation response. PLOS Biol. 17(11), e3000534 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Tiwari M, Pati D, Mohapatra R, Sahu BB, Singh P. The impact of microbes in plant immunity and priming induced inheritance: a sustainable approach for crop protection. Plant Stress 4, 100072 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 14. Zhour JM, Zhang Y. Plant immunity: danger perception and signaling. Cell 181(5), 978–989 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 15. Rahman NSNA, Hamid NWA, Nadarajah K. Effects of abiotic stress on soil microbiome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(16), 93036 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 16. Xu L, Colemann-Derr D. Causes and consequences of a conserved bacterial root microbiome response to drought stress. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 49, 1–6 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Liu H, Brettell L, Qiu Z, Singh B. Microbiome-mediated stress resistance in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 25(8), 733–743 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18. Hartman K, Tringe S. Interactions between plants and soil shaping the root microbiome under abiotic stress. Biochem. J. 476(19), 2705–2724 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19. Santos-Medellín C, Liechty Z, Edwards J et al. Prolonged drought imparts lasting compositional changes to the rice root microbiome. Nat Plants. 7(8), 1065–1077 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Huang G, Jin Q, Peng H, Zhu T, Ye H. Effect of a fungus, Hypoxylon spp., on endophytes in the roots of asparagus. FES Microbiol. Lett. 366(16), fnz207 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Harbort C, Hashimoto M, Inoue H et al. Root-secreted coumarins and the microbiota interact to improve iron nutrition in Arabidopsis. Cell Host Microb. 28(6), 825–837 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Zhang J, Liu YX, Zhang N et al. NRT1.1B is associated with root microbiota composition and nitrogen use in field-grown rice. Nat. Biotech. 37, 676–684 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23. Teixeira PJPL, Colaianni NR, Law TF, Dangl J. Specific modulation of the root immune system by a community of commensal bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118(16), e2100678118 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24. McLaren MR, Callahan BJ. Pathogen resistance may be the principal evolutionary advantage provided by the microbiome. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 375(1808), 20190592 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25. Ravanbakhsh M, Kowalchuk GA, Jousset A. Targeted plant hologenome editing for plant trait enhancement. New Phytol. 229(2), 1067–1077 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Ravanbakhsh M, Kowalchuk GA, Jousset A. Root-associated microorganisms reprogram plant life history along the growth-stress resistance tradeoff. ISME J. 13, 3093–3101 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Wagner M, Lundberg DS, Coleman-Derr D, Tringe SG, Dangi JL, Mitchell-Olds T. Natural soil microbes later flowering phenology and the intensity of selection on flowering time in a wild Arabidopsis relative. Ecol. Lett. 17(6), 717–726 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 28. Romano I, Ventorino V, Pepe O. Effectiveness of plant beneficial microbes: overview of the methodological approaches for the assessment of root colonization and persistence. Front. Plant. Sci. 11, 6 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 29. Shayanthan A, Ordoñez PAC, Oresnik IJ. The role of synthetic microbial communities (SynCom) in sustainable agriculture. Front. Agron. 4, 896307 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 30. Chai YN, Ge Y, Stoerger V, Schachtman DP. High-resolution phenotyping of sorghum genotypic and phenotypic responses to low nitrogen and synthetic microbial communities. Plant Cell Environ. 44(5), 1611–1626 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Lee SM, Kong HG, Song GC, Ryu CM. Disruption of Firmicutes and Actinobacteria abundance in tomato rhizosphere causes the incidence of bacterial wilt disease. ISME J. 15, 330–347 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32. Santhanam R, Luu VT, Weinhold A, Goldberg J, Oh Y, Baldwin IT. Native root-associated bacteria rescue a plant from a sudden-wilt disease that emerged during continuous cropping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112(36), E5013–E5020 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33. Wang C, Li Y, Li M et al. Functional assembly of root-associated microbial consortia improves nutrient efficiency and yield in soybean. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 63(6), 1021–1035 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34. Nwachukwu BC, Babalola OO. Metagenomics: a tool for exploring key microbiome with the potentials for improving sustainable agriculture. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6, 886987 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 35. Enespa, Chandra P. Tool and techniques study to plant microbiome current understanding and future needs: an overview. Commun. Integr. Biol. 15(1), 209–225 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36. Hao DC, Gu XJ, Xiao PG. Chemical and biological research of Clematis medicinal resources. In: Medicinal Plants. Hao DCGu XJXiao PG (Eds). Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 341–371 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 37. Igiehon NO, Babalola OO, Aremu BR. Genomic insights into plant growth promoting rhizobia capable of enhancing soybean germination under drought stress. BMC Microbiol. 19, 159 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 38. Babalola OO, Alawiye TT, Lopez CR, Ayangbenro AS. Shotgun metagenomic sequencing data of sunflower rhizosphere microbial community in South Africa. Data Br. 31, 105831 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39. Wang C, Zhou X, Guo D et al. Soil pH is the primary factor driving the distribution and function of microorganisms in farmland soils in northeastern China. Ann. Microbiol. 69, 1461–1473 (2019).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 40. Oulas A, Pavloudi C, Polymenakou P et al. Metagenomics: tools and insights for analyzing next-generation sequencing data derived from biodiversity studies. Bioinform. Biol. Insights 9, 75–88 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41. Goodwin S, McPherson JD, McCombie WR. Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. Nat. Rev. Gen. 17, 333–351 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Kerkhof LJ, Dillon KP, Häggblom MM, McGuinness LR. Profiling bacterial communities by MinION sequencing of ribosomal operons. Microbiome 5, 116 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 43. Johnson JS, Spakowicz DJ, Hong BY et al. Evluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis. Nat. Commun. 6(10), 5029 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 44. Winand R, Bogaerts B, Hoffman S et al. Targeting the 16S rRNA gene for bacterial identification in complex mixed samples; comparative evaluation of second (Illumina) and third (Oxford Nanopore Technologies) generation sequencing technologies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21(1), 298 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Jouffret V, Miotello G, Culotta K, Ayrault S, Pible O, Armengaud J. Increasing the power of interpretation for soil metaproteomics data. Microbiome 9, 195 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46. Keiblinger KM, Wilhartitz IC, Schneider T et al. Soil metaproteomics – comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 54, 14–24 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47. Jagtap P, Goslinga J, Kooren JA et al. A two-step database search method improves sensitivity in peptide sequence matches for metaproteomics and proteogenomics studies. Proteomics. 13(8), 1352–1357 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48. Becher D, Bernhardt J, Fuchs S, Riedel K. Metaproteomics to unravel major microbial players in leaf litter and soil environments: challenges and perspectives. Proteomics. 13(18–19), 2895–2909 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49. Wu L, Wang H, Zhang Z, Lin R, Zhang Z, Lin W. Comparative metaproteomic analysis on consecutively Rehmannia glutinosa-monocultured rhizosphere soil. PLOS One 6(5), e20611 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50. Liu D, Keiblinger KM, Leitner S et al. Response of microbial communities and their metabolic functions to drying-rewetting stress in a temperature forest soil. Microorganisms. 7(5), 129 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 51. Yao Q, Li Z, Song Y et al. Community proteogenomics reveals the systemic impact of phosphorus availability on microbial functions in tropical soil. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 499–509 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52. Lin W, Wu L, Lin S et al. Metaproteomic analysis of ratoon sugarcane rhizospheric soil. BMC Microbiol. 13, 135 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 53. Orellana LH, Hatt JK, Iyer R et al. Comparing DNA, RNA and protein levels for measuring microbial dynamics in soil microcosms amended with nitrogen fertilizer. Sci. Rep. 9, 17630 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 54. Ram RJ, Verberkmoes NC, Thelen MP et al. Community proteomics of a natural microbial biofilm. Science 308(5730), 1915–1920 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55. Hultman J, Waldrop MP, Mackelprang R et al. Multi-omics of permafrost, active layer and thermokarst bog soil microbiomes. Nature 521(7551), 208–212 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56. Bastida F, Torres IF, Moreno JL et al. The active microbial diversity drives ecosystem multifunctionality and is physiologically related to carbon availability in Mediterranean semi-arid soil. Mol. Ecol. 25(18), 4660–4673 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57. Turner TR, Ramakrishnan K, Walshaw J et al. Comparative metatranscriptomics reveals kingdom level changes in the rhizosphere microbiome of plants. ISME J. 7, 2248–2258 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 58. Tveit AT, Urich T, Svenning MM. Metatranscriptomic analysis of artic peat soil microbiota. AEM. 80(18), 5761–5772 (2014).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 59. Shi H, Zhou Y, Jia E, Pan M, Bai Y, Ge Q. Bias in RNA-seq library preparation: current challenges and solutions. Biomed. Res. Int. 2021, 6647597 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 60. Frias-Lopez J, Shi Y, Tyson GW et al. Microbial community gene expression in ocean surface waters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105(10), 3805–3810 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 61. He S, Wurtzel O, Singh K et al. Validation of two ribosomal RNA removal methods for microbial metatranscriptomics. Nat. Methods 7, 807–812 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62. Stewart FJ, Ottesen EA, DeLong EF. Development and quantitative analyses of a microbial universal rRNA-subtraction protocol for microbial metatranscriptomics. ISME J. 4(7), 896–907 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 63. Hu A, Lu Y, García MH, Dumont MG. Targeted metatranscriptomics of soil microbial communities with stable isotope probing. In: Methods in Molecular Biology. Dumont MGGarcía MH (Eds). Humana, NY, USA, 163–174 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 64. Carvalhais LC, Dennis PG, Tyson GW, Schenk PM. Application of metatranscriptomics to soil environments. J. Microbiol. Methods 91(2), 246–251 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 65. Arbeli Z, Fuentes CL. Improved purification and PCR amplification of DNA from environmental samples. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 272(2), 269–275 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66. Deutscher MP. Degradation of RNA in bacteria: comparison of mRNA and stable RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 34(2), 659–666 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 67. Gómez-Godínez LJ, Fernandez-Valverde SL, Romero JCM, Martínez-Romero E. Metatranscriptomics and nitrogen fixation from the rhizoplane of maize plantlets inoculated with a group of PGPRs. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 42(4), 517–525 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68. Sessitsch A, Pfaffenbicher N, Mitter B. Microbiome applications from lab to field: facing complexity. Trends Plant Sci. 24(3), 194–198 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69. Chodkowski JL, Shade A. A synthetic community system for probing microbial interactions driven by exometabolites. mSystems 2(6), e00129–e00117 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 70. Choi K, Khan R, Lee SW. Dissection of plant microbiota and plant–microbiome interactions. J. Microbiol. 59, 281–291 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 71. Qiu Z, Egidi E, Liu H, Kaur S, Singh BK. New frontiers in agriculture productivity: optimised microbial inoculants and in situ microbiome engineering. Biotechnol. Adv. 37, 107371 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 72. de Souza RSC, Armanhi JSL, Arruda P. From microbiome to traits: designing synthetic microbial communities for improved crop resiliency. Front. Plant Sci. 11 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar