Open Access

Metaproteomic analysis of ratoon sugarcane rhizospheric soil

  • Wenxiong Lin1, 2Email author,
  • Linkun Wu1, 2,
  • Sheng Lin1, 2,
  • Aijia Zhang1, 2,
  • Mingming Zhou1, 2,
  • Rui Lin3,
  • Haibin Wang1, 2,
  • Jun Chen1, 2,
  • Zhixing Zhang1, 2 and
  • Ruiyu Lin1, 2
Contributed equally
BMC Microbiology201313:135

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-13-135

Received: 2 February 2013

Accepted: 30 May 2013

Published: 17 June 2013

Abstract

Background

The current study was undertaken to elucidate the mechanism of yield decline in ratoon sugarcane using soil metaproteomics combined with community level physiological profiles (CLPP) analysis.

Results

The available stalk number, stalk diameter, single stalk weight and theoretical yield of ratoon cane (RS) were found to be significantly lower than those of plant cane (NS). The activities of several carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus processing enzymes, including invertase, peroxidase, urease and phosphomonoesterase were found to be significantly lower in RS soil than in NS soil. BIOLOG analysis indicated a significant decline in average well-color development (AWCD), Shannon’s diversity and evenness indices in RS soil as compared to NS soil. To profile the rhizospheric metaproteome, 109 soil protein spots with high resolution and repeatability were successfully identified. These proteins were found to be involved in carbohydrate/energy, amino acid, protein, nucleotide, auxin and secondary metabolisms, membrane transport, signal transduction and resistance, etc. Comparative metaproteomics analysis revealed that 38 proteins were differentially expressed in the RS soil as compared to the control soil or NS soil. Among these, most of the plant proteins related to carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism and stress response were up-regulated in RS soil. Furthermore, several microbial proteins related to membrane transport and signal transduction were up-regulated in RS soil. These proteins were speculated to function in root colonization by microbes.

Conclusions

Our experiments revealed that sugarcane ratooning practice induced significant changes in the soil enzyme activities, the catabolic diversity of microbial community, and the expression level of soil proteins. They influenced the biochemical processes in the rhizosphere ecosystem and mediated the interactions between plants and soil microbes.

Keywords

CLPP 2D-electrophoresis Soil enzyme Soil metaproteomics Soil protein extraction Sugarcane

Background

Sugarcane (Saccharum L. spp. hybrids) is of tremendous economic importance not just for the sugar industry but also for its impact on sustainable energy production. The ratoon sugarcane is the regenerated crop plant from the germinating bud of the stubble from the previous crop [1]. Ratooning practice saves cost on preparatory tillage and planting material and benefits from the residual manure and moisture. In addition, the ratoon sugarcane matures earlier than the newly planted sugarcane (plant sugarcane). However, there is a decline in the yield of ratoon sugarcane in the successive years under normal conditions [2]. This has become one of the major problems in the high-yielding cultivation of sugarcane.

The expansion of crop monoculture has led to the simplification of the agroecosystem, and the loss and fragmentation of habitat [3]. Large-scale monocultures result in a decline in the biological diversity, destroy the capability of self-adjustment of the ecosystem, and cause diseases, which further increases the production cost and pollute the environment because more pesticides and better fertilizers are required [3]. The yield decline has been defined as the loss of productive capacity of sugarcane soils under long-term monocultures [4]. Gascho et al. [5] found that productivity of the ratoon sugarcane was 33 percent less than the plant sugarcane due to increased mortality of stalks, reduction in soil nutrition status and abundance of pests and diseases in the soil. Current evidences suggests that several factors (including the long-term sugarcane monoculture, excessive tillage and mechanical harvesting and haul-out with heavy machinery, etc.) are responsible for the degradation of physical, chemical and microbial properties of sugarcane growing soils [6, 7]. Recent studies have revealed that crop rotation breaks and organic amendments greatly influence the structure and microbial populations of the sugarcane rhizospheric soil [2, 8, 9]. Our previous study showed that ratooning cane, intercropped with legumes, enhanced the functional diversity of rhizospheric microbial community and increased cane yield (Data not shown). Plant-soil organism interactions, especially plant-microbial interactions play crucial roles in soil quality, and crop health and yield [10, 11]. There has been an increasing interest in the biological properties of rhizosphere in situ[12]. However, there is no report hitherto focusing on the relationship among the soil ecosystem, soil organism community and sugarcane ratooning practice from a proteomic perspective.

Various DNA-dependent strategies, such as terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism [13], denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis [14] and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction [15] have been used to elucidate the biological information from microbial communities in the soil ecosystem. However, since the mRNA expression and protein expression do not always correlate directly, the function of microbial diversity still remains unknown [16]. Moreover, the biological processes in rhizosphere soil are not only driven by the microbes but also by the plants and the fauna in the ecosystem [17]. Extended soil protein identification is essential for understanding the soil ecological processes and the environmental factors that affect the functioning of the rhizospheric soil ecosystem [18, 19]. Two community-based measurements, community level physiological profiles (CLPP) and soil metaproteomics were used in this work. The assessment of microbial functional diversity by using BIOLOG sole carbon (C) substrate utilization tests is a rapid, sensitive approach to detect modifications in diversity due to soil management, disturbance, stress or succession [20]. Soil rhizospheric metaproteomics is a powerful scientific tool to account for functional gene expression in microbial ecosystems and can uncover the interactions between plants and soil microorganisms [17].

It was speculated that the yield decline in ratoon sugarcane is closely related to the dynamics and genetic diversity of the community members (i.e., bacteria, fungi and fauna). Therefore, in this study, we aimed to: (i) determine differences between the soil protein abundance in plant sugarcane and ratoon sugarcane rhizospheric soils, and (ii) analyze interactions between the root system and the rhizospheric soil organisms based on our data from soil enzyme assays, CLPP analysis, and a limited number of identified soil proteins.

Results

Sucrose content and theoretical production

The available stalk number per hectare, stalk diameter, single stalk weight and theoretical production of plant cane were found to be significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher than those of ratoon cane. However, there were no significant differences in the sucrose content and stalk height of the 2 types of cane (Table 1).
Table 1

The agronomic characters, theoretical sugar content and yield of plant cane and ratoon cane

 

Sucrose content (%)

Available stalk number (hm-2)

Stalk height (cm)

Stalk diameter (cm)

Single stalk weight (kg)

Theoretical production (kg/hm2)

Plant cane

12.86±0.63a

67311.06±555.17a

312.0±1.53a

2.97±0.009a

1.96±0.02a

131785.5±393.7a

Ratoon cane

13.59±0.36a

61541.54±826.24b

325.3±9.17a

2.77±0.066b

1.78±0.10b

109404.8±6641.4b

Note: Data are means ± SE. Different letters in columns show significant differences determined by Tucky’s test (P ≤ 0.05).

Soil enzyme activity

Except for polyphenol oxidase, the other enzymes, i.e. invertase, urease, phosphomonoesterase and peroxidase activities were found to be significantly higher in plant cane soil, than in ratoon cane soil or control soil. There were no significant differences in invertase and peroxidase activities between the control and ratoon cane soils. However, the control soil had significantly lower urease and phosphomonoesterase activities than ratoon cane soil (Table 2).
Table 2

Soil enzyme activities in rhizospheric soils from the study sites

 

Invertase a

Urease b

Phosphomonoesterase c

Polyphenol oxidase d

Peroxidase d

Control soil

0.21±0.034b

0.020±0.0009c

0.12±0.0091c

0.85±0.074a

1.91±0.101b

Plant cane soil

0.62±0.033a

0.047±0.0023a

0.41±0.0042a

1.18±0.074a

2.50±0.208a

Ratoon cane soil

0.33±0.020b

0.038±0.0013b

0.27±0.0108b

0.88±0.164a

1.88±0.024b

Note: Data are means ± SE. Different letters in columns show significant differences determined by Tucky’s test (P ≤ 0.05). a μmol glucose g-1 soil h-1; b μmol urea g-1 soil h-1; c μmol p-nitrophenol g-1 soil h-1; d μmol pyrogallol g-1 soil h-1.

Microbial community dynamics assessed by BIOLOG analysis

The average well-color development (AWCD) of the carbon substrates for all soil samples using the BIOLOG ECO microplates indicated that the change in AWCD increased with an increase in incubation time during the 168 h incubation period (Figure 1). The AWCD followed the sequence, plant cane (NS) > ratoon cane (RS) > control (CK), at almost every time point monitored. Plant cane soil showed the largest rates of substrate utilization while ratoon cane soil displayed significantly lower rates. Furthermore, CLPP diversity and evenness, evaluated with the data from 96 h incubation, were found to be significantly lower in ratoon cane soil than in plant cane soil. Both, Shannon’s diversity and evenness indices were found to be the lowest in the control soil (Table 3). The consumption of carbohydrates, amines, amino acids and phenolic compounds was significantly reduced in ratoon cane soil compared to that in plant cane soil (Table 3). We found that phenolic compounds were mainly expended in control soil; carbohydrates and amines in plant cane soil; while carboxylic acids and amino acids were expended in ratoon cane soil.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-13-135/MediaObjects/12866_2013_Article_2000_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Average well color development (AWCD) of substrate utilization patterns in BIOLOG ECO microplates.

Table 3

Diversity and evenness indices, and mean optical density of grouped substrates (six groups) at 96 h incubation time in different treatments

 

Control soil

Plant cane soil

Ratoon cane soil

P values

Shannon’s diversity index

4.190±0.03c

4.393±0.01a

4.273±0.02b

0.0003

Shannon’s evenness

0.85±0.01b

0.89±0.01a

0.85±0.01b

0.001

Mean OD

0.20±0.06c

0.90±0.09a

0.42±0.06b

0.0001

Polymers

0.12±0.03b

0.37±0.07a

0.30±0.08a

0.008

Carbohydrates

0.18±0.02b

1.31±0.12a

0.28±0.03b

0.0001

Carboxylic acids

0.10±0.04b

0.70±0.15a

0.65±0.08a

0.0007

Amino acids

0.20±0.05c

0.81±0.11a

0.59±0.07b

0.0003

Amines

0.11±0.02b

1.16±0.08a

0.12±0.03b

0.0001

Phenolic compounds

0.84±0.05a

0.53±0.03b

0.39±0.02c

0.0001

Note: Data are means ± SD. Different letters in rows show significant differences determined by Tucky’s test (P ≤ 0.05).

Principal component analysis (PCA) indicated that 96 h AWCD data successfully distinguished the response of the 3 soil communities to the carbon substrates (Figure 2). The first principal component (PC1) accounted for 49.8% of the total variation in the ECO microplate data, while PC2 accounted for 27.4% of the total variation in the ECO microplate data. The eight carbon substrates with the most positive and most negative scores (i.e., contributing most strongly to the separation of samples) on PC1 and PC2 are listed in Additional file 1: Table S1. α-Ketobutyric acid and D-glucosaminic acid were discriminated most positively by PC1 scores, while L-asparagine and D-galacturonic acid were discriminated most positively by PC2 scores. However, i-erythritol and glucose-1-phosphate were discriminated most negatively by PC1 scores, while D-galactonic acid γ-lactone and 4-hydroxy benzoic acid were discriminated most negatively by PC2 scores.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-13-135/MediaObjects/12866_2013_Article_2000_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Principal component analysis of substrate utilization patterns from three different rhizospheric soil samples.

Profile analysis of metaproteome in rhizospheric soils

Approximately 759, 788, and 844 protein spots were detected on silver-stained gel of proteins extracted from the control soil, plant cane soil, and ratoon cane soil respectively (Additional file 2: Figure S1). Highly reproducible 2-DE maps were obtained from the three different soil samples with significant correlations among scatter plots. The correlation index between the control soils and the newly planted sugarcane soils was found to be 0.868, and the correlation index between the control soils and the one year ratoon sugarcane soils were was 0.761.

To obtain a metaproteomic profile for the sugarcane rhizospheric soil, 143 protein spots with high resolution and repeatability, including all 38 differentially expressed proteins and 105 constitutively expressed proteins, were selected for identification and 109 protein spots were successfully analyzed by MALDI TOF-TOF MS (Additional file 3: Figure S2; Additional file 4: Table S2).

According to Gene Ontology (GO) annotations, the identified proteins were classified into 8 Cellular Component (CC), 8 Molecular Function (MF) and 17 Biological Process (BP) categories, as shown in Figure 3. Highly represented categories were associated with ‘cell part’ (53.2% of the GO annotated proteins) and ‘organelle’ (35.8%) in CC, ‘catalytic activity’ (65.1%) and ‘binding’ (55.0%) in MF, ‘metabolic process’ (70.6%), ‘cellular process’ (56.9%) and ‘response to stimulus’ (33.0%) in BP.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-13-135/MediaObjects/12866_2013_Article_2000_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Gene Ontology (GO) for the identified soil proteins. The right coordinate axis indicates the number of proteins for each GO annotation, and the left one represents the proportion of proteins for every GO annotation.

According to the putative physiological functions assigned using the KEGG database, these soil proteins were categorized into 16 groups as shown in Figure 4. Among these, 55.96% were derived from plants, 24.77% from bacteria, 17.43% from fungi and 1.83% from fauna (Additional file 4: Table S2). Most of these identified proteins were associated with the carbohydrate/energy metabolism (constituting 30.28%), amino acid metabolism (constituting 15.60%) and protein metabolism (constituting 12.84%). Besides, ten proteins (constituting 9.17%, including the heat shock protein 70 and catalase, etc.) were found to be involved in stress defense and eleven proteins (constituting 10.09%, including the two-component system sensor kinase, G-protein signaling regulator and annexin protein, etc.) relating to the signal transduction were detected (Additional file 4: Table S2). Based on the metaproteomic data, a tentative metabolic model for the rhizospheric soil proteins was proposed as shown in Additional file 5: Figure S3. These soil proteins function in carbohydrate/energy, nucleotide, amino acid, protein, auxin metabolism and secondary metabolism, membrane transport, signal transduction and resistance, etc.. Most of the plant proteins identified, were thought to participate in carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism, which might provide the necessary energy and precursor materials for the organic acid efflux and rhizodeposition process, defense responses and secondary metabolism under biotic and abiotic stresses. However, some microbial proteins related to the membrane transport (including the ABC transporter ATP-binding subunit, and sugar ABC transporter) and signal transduction (including the two-component system sensor kinase) were also identified in the rhizospheric soil, which might play an important role in the root colonization of microbes. These soil proteins probably influence the rhizodeposition process and mediate the interactions between the plants and the soil organisms.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-13-135/MediaObjects/12866_2013_Article_2000_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Functional classification of the identified proteins. Identified proteins were classified according to their functions using KEGG database (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes, http://www.genome.jp/kegg/).

Differentially expressed proteins and their roles in rhizospheric soils

As shown in Table 4, the quantitative analysis revealed that a total of 38 protein spots (spots 1-38) with high repeatability displayed differential expression by more than 1.5-fold at least on one gel in comparison to the control [21]. These differentially expressed proteins originated from plants (constituting 50%), bacteria (constituting 34.21%), fungi (constituting 13.16%) and fauna (constituting 2.63%) (Table 4).
Table 4

Differentially expressed proteins identified by MALDI TOF-TOF MS

Spot no. a)

GI no. b)

Protein name

Score (PMF) c)

PMF/Coveraged)

MW/ pIe)

Score (MS-MS) f)

Pept g)

Species

Function h)

RS/

CK i)

RS/

NS j)

12

gi|115470493

Succinate dehydrogenase [ubiquinone] flavoprotein subunit, mitochondrial

106

20/34%

69494/6.61

185

3

Oryza sativa

TCA

1.9

1.9

13

gi|115467370

Phosphofructokinase

130

18/38%

61907/6.01

251

4

Oryza sativa

EMP

1.7

1.7

16

gi|115459078

Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, cytosolic 3

117

14/51%

36921/6.34

122

2

Oryza sativa

EMP

1.6

1.5

18

gi|115480019

Proteasome beta type-1

136

11/50%

24608/6.43

92

2

Oryza sativa

Protein degradation

0.8

1.5

23

gi|51090388

Putative PrMC3

107

16/59%

34540/5.61

296

3

Oryza sativa

Stress/defense response

1.6

1.7

25

gi|115111257

Betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase

86

10/31%

55361/5.29

276

4

Oryza sativa

Amino acid metabolism

2.2

2.2

26

gi|115464537

2,3-bisphosphoglycerate-independent phosphoglycerate mutase

127

20/42%

61003/5.25

361

5

Oryza sativa

EMP

2.0

1.0

27

gi|115448989

Heat shock 70 kDa protein, mitochondrial precursor

96

19/34%

73081/5.49

456

4

Oryza sativa

Stress/defense response

2.3

2.2

28

gi|54606800

NADP dependent malic enzyme

84

24/37%

65824/5.79

193

3

Oryza sativa

Pyruvate metabolism

2.1

2.1

29

gi|115477952

Cyclase family protein

80

11/39%

29792/5.32

115

2

Oryza sativa

Signal transduction

2.4

1.0

31

gi|115440691

2,3-bisphosphoglycerate-independent phosphoglycerate mutase

189

30/50%

60980/5.42

500

4

Oryza sativa

EMP

1.1

1.7

32

gi|108708038

Fumarate hydratase 1, mitochondrial precursor, putative, expressed

124

13/27%

53991/6.93

210

4

Oryza sativa

TCA

1.8

1.6

35

gi|968996

Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase

139

14/50%

36641/6.61

379

3

Oryza sativa

EMP

1.7

1.5

37

gi|3024122

S-adenosylmethionine synthase 2

100

18/60%

43330/5.60

405

4

Oryza sativa

Amino acid metabolism

0.4

0.6

1

gi|1203832

Beta-D-glucan exohydrolase, isoenzyme ExoII

  

67835/7.96

153

2

Hordeum vulgare

Glycan metabolism

4.0

1.5

4

gi|3868754

Catalase

  

57052/6.49

147

2

Oryza sativa

Stress/defense response

2.9

1.7

21

gi|115455455

UDP-glucose 6-dehydrogenase

  

53435/5.79

208

3

Oryza sativa

Glycan metabolism

1.5

1.0

33

gi|38605779

NAD-dependent isocitrate dehydrogenase

  

36882/5.77

221

3

Oryza sativa

TCA

1.8

1.0

2

gi|226357624

Putative sugar ABC transporter, periplasmic component

84

10/33%

46676/9.68

  

Deinococcus deserti

Membrane transport

3.0

1.6

3

gi|241957693

Mitochondrial N-glycosylase/DNA lyase

74

11/39%

40573/8.46

  

Candida dubliniensis

Nucleotide metabolism

3.1

1.9

5

gi|254399905

ABC transporter ATP-binding subunit

82

18/31%

66963/5.53

  

Streptomyces sviceus

Membrane transport

2.0

1.5

6

gi|126662203

Oxidoreductase

74

13/20%

76867/8.83

  

Flavobacteria bacterium

Oxidation reduction

2.4

1.7

7

gi|261195979

ORP1

74

10/39%

36747/9.48

  

Ajellomyces dermatitidis

Signal transduction

1.6

1.5

8

gi|238481813

ADP-ribosylglycohydrolase

84

18/28%

49119/6.02

  

Aspergillus flavus

Signal transduction

1.0

0.5

9

gi|261854741

Phosphoribosylformimino-5-aminoimidazole carboxamide ribotide isomerase

85

9/41%

26805/4.63

  

Halothiobacillus neapolitanus

Amino acid metabolism

0.6

0.6

10

gi|115456914

Elongation factor EF-2

101

23/31%

94939/5.85

  

Oryza sativa

Protein metabolism

4.6

2.3

11

gi|219667596

Radical SAM domain protein

82

11/46%

38272/5.24

  

Desulfitobacterium hafniense

Diverse reaction

2.3

2.5

14

gi|111024023

Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase

87

13/37%

41071/5.40

  

Rhodococcus jostii

Amino acid metabolism

2.8

1.9

15

gi|23009750

Succinate dehydrogenase/fumarate reductase, Fe-S protein subunit

87

7/92%

6114/4.52

  

Magnetospirillum magnetotacticum

TCA

1.9

1.0

17

gi|253988359

Phosphoglycerate kinase

83

9/33%

41652/5.19

  

Photorhabdus asymbiotica

EMP

0.6

1.0

19

gi|94497581

Electron-transferring-flavoprotein dehydrogenase

84

9/25%

61194/5.66

  

Sphingomonas sp.

Energy metabolism

0.5

0.6

20

gi|85110870

Related to kinesin-like protein

74

26/21%

195364/5.31

  

Neurospora crassa

Cytoskeleton protein

2.0

2.0

22

gi|194366013

Nitrate reductase, alpha subunit

71

19/16%

140507/5.98

  

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia

Nitrogen metabolism

1.9

1.1

24

gi|21492793

Conjugal transfer protein A

91

24/19%

171793/6.93

  

Rhizobium etli

Bacterial conjugation

2.1

1.0

30

gi|219664364

Two-component system sensor kinase

87

19/15%

176010/6.50

  

Rhodococcus sp.

Signal transduction

3.0

1.6

34

gi|126135008

Isocitrate dehydrogenase [NADP], mitochondrial precursor

76

14/32%

48355/8.21

  

Pichia stipitis

TCA

1.7

1.7

36

gi|52426030

MrcA protein

90

18/25%

96552/6.40

  

Mannheimia succiniciproducens

Glycan metabolism

1.6

1.0

38

gi|148685933

Tubulin, gamma complex associated protein 2

90

18/29%

89598/6.52

  

Mus musculus

Cytoskeleton protein

0.6

0.9

Note: Protein spots 12, 13, 16, 18, 23, 25-29, 31, 32, 35 and 37 shared equal searching by MS/MS and MS. Protein spots 1, 4, 21 and 33 matched at least two MS/MS peptides. The remainders matched at least three PMFs. a) The numbering corresponds to the 2-DE gel in Additional file 3: Figure S3. b) GI number in NCBI. c) MASCOT score of PMF. d) The number of peptides identified by MS/sequence percentage coverage. e) Theoretical molecular weight and pI. f) MASCOT score of MS/MS. g) Number of peptides identified by MS/MS. h) Functional classification using KEGG database. i) the ratio of ratoon cane soil (RS) to control soil (CK). j) the ratio of ratoon cane soil (RS) to plant cane soil (NS).

Among the plant-originating differentially expressed proteins, the largest functional group found was of the proteins involved in carbohydrate and energy metabolism (constituting 47.37%), followed by those associated with stress/defense response (constituting 15.79%) (Figure 5). Furthermore, most of plant proteins related to carbohydrate/energy metabolism (including spot 12, succinate dehydrogenase; spot 13, phosphofructokinase; spots 16 and 35, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase; spot 28, NADP dependent malic enzyme and spot 32, fumarate hydratase 1) and amino acid metabolism (i.e. spot 25, betaine aldehyde hydrogenase) were found up-regulated in the ratoon cane soil, compared to the plant cane and control soils (Table 4). These up-regulated plant proteins involved in carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism probably provide the energy necessary and precursor materials for plant root secretion and rhizodeposition process, which serve as a nutrient source for root-associated microbes. Several proteins (including spot 4, catalase; spot 23, PrMC3 and spot 27, heat shock 70 kDa protein) related to plant stress defense were up-regulated in the ratoon cane soil (Table 4).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-13-135/MediaObjects/12866_2013_Article_2000_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Figure 5

The functional category distribution of differentially expressed proteins originated from the plants (a) and the microbes (b).

Among the microbe-originating differentially expressed proteins, most of them were associated with the carbohydrate/energy metabolism (22.22%) and signal transduction (22.22%) (Figure 5). Several microbial proteins were found related to the root-colonizing ability of microorganisms (including spot 30, two-component system sensor kinase) and the utilization of root exudates (including spot 2, sugar ABC transporter and spot 5, ABC transporter ATP-binding subunit) were up-regulated in the ratoon cane soil, as compared to the plant cane and control soil (Table 4), which might be a response of microbes to the rhizodeposition of ratoon cane. Furthermore, most of proteins originated from fungi (including spot 3, mitochondrial N-glycosylase/DNA lyase; spot 7, ORP1; spot 20, kinesin-like protein and spot 34, isocitrate dehydrogenase) were up-regulated in the ratoon cane soil (Table 4). Besides, one cytoskeleton protein (spot 38, i.e. tubulin gamma) originated from the fauna was identified as well. Therefore, sugarcane ratooning induced the alteration of the expression of soil proteins from the plants, microbes and fauna.

Discussion

The consecutive monocultures for many medicinal plants and crop plants, such as Rehmannia glutinosa[22] and soybea [23], etc., result in a significant reduction in the yield and quality of the harvest. This phenomenon is known as soil sickness (replanting disease) [24] or consecutive monoculture problems [25]. In the present study, the available stalk number per hectare, stalk diameter, single stalk weight) and theoretical production of ratoon cane were found to be significantly (P ≤ 0.05) lower than those of plant cane (Table 1). Hunsigi [26] indicated that ratooning practice decreased soil fertility under consecutive sugarcane cropping. Several researchers developed a ‘farming systems’ approach to address the problem of sugarcane cultivation with a major focus on the introduction of rotation breaks and organic amendments and found that these practices induced remarkable changes in the commnunity composition and structure of the soil biota (bacteria, fungi and nematodes, etc.) [8, 27, 28]. Enzyme activity in soil is a measure of the soil microbial activity and plays an important role in nutrient cycles and transformations. Therefore, it is used as an indicator of changes into determine changes in quality and productivity of soil [29, 30]. In the present study, five soil enzymes activities involved in nutrition cycling and stress response were assayed. Our data showed that the activities of soil enzymes such as invertase, urease, phosphomonoesterase and peroxidase were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in ratoon cane soil than in plant cane soil (Table 2).

The assessment of microbial functional diversity by carbon substrate utilization patterns has been reported to be a sensitive approach to detect variability in metabolic potential due to soil management [31]. In the current work, the BIOLOG results showed that ratooning practice led to significant decreases (P < 0.05) in AWCD, Shannon’s diversity, and evenness indices in soil as compared to the plant cane soil (Table 3). Particularly, there were significantly lower levels (P < 0.05) of carboxyhydrates, amines and amino acids used in ratoon cane soil than in plant cane soil (Table 3). Principal component analysis allowed the differentiation of ratoon cane soil from the control and the plant cane soil. However, the use of BIOLOG ECO microplates to analyze the metabolic diversity of the microbial community represents only the in situ phenomena where only the fast growing microbes are involved, and ignores the catabolic profiles of functionally inactive microorganisms [32]. Preston-Mafham et al. [33] claimed that BIOLOG measurements should be applied in community comparisons rather than in community characterization. The trophic structure and the relationship between its components in soil are still poorly understood as the soil food web and biochemical processes are extraordinarily complex. Comparative metaproteomics was used to study the differences in functional gene expression that are mediated by sugarcane ratooning practice in the rhizosphere ecosystem. These differentially expressed proteins were related to various metabolic pathways such as carbohydrate/energy metabolism, amino acid metabolism, signal transduction, membrane transport, and stress/defense response etc.. These results might help to unravel the intricate interactions among plant root systems, root exudates, and rhizospheric microflora.

Differentially expressed plant proteins under ratooning practice

Our metaproteomic analysis showed that the 6 proteins (spot 12, succinate dehydrogenase; spot 13, phosphofructokinase; spots 16 and 35, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase and spot 32, fumarate hydratase 1) linked to the glycolysis (EMP) / tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and one protein (spot 25, betaine aldehyde hydrogenase) involved in glycine, serine and threonine metabolism were highly expressed in the ratoon cane soil, as compared to the plant cane and control soils (Table 4). These proteins are probably associated with the release of root exudates from plants. Many root exudates (such as malate, fumarate, oxalate, malonate, citrate, aconitate, arginine, histidine and lysine) are mostly the intermediates of the TCA cycle or amino acid metabolism. Singh and Mukerji [34] suggested that these root exudates were the determinants of rhizospheric microbial biodiversity. Root exudates act as chemo-attractants that function to attract bacteria towards roots [35]. The qualitative and quantitative composition of root exudates is affected by various environmental factors (such as pH, soil type, oxygen status, nutrient availability, etc.) and the presence of microorganisms. The up-regulation of these proteins involved in the carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism might be explained by a change in the composition of root exudates possibly resulting from soil disturbances which might be caused by ratooning.

In this study, three proteins linked to plant stress/defense response (including spot 4, catalase; spot 23, PrMC3 and spot 27, heat shock 70 kDa protein) showed higher expression levels in the ratoon cane soil than in the plant cane and control soils (Table 4). Catalase and heat shock protein 70 (Hsp 70) have been proven to be critical for various abiotic and biotic stress responses [3638]. The above mentioned proteins are rapidly up-regulated in pathogen infection and play a central role in defense against pathogens [39, 40]. PrMC3 is a member of a family of proteins that all contain a Ser-hydrolase motif (GxSxG) and is similar to the tobacco protein hsr203J [41]. Hsr203J is rapidly and specifically expressed in the hypersensitive response to various pathogens in tobacco [42]. Furthermore, Zhou et al. [43] found that the gene expression of PrMC3 was up-regulated in the plant leaves infected by the bacterial pathogen Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzicola. Therefore, the up-regulation of catalase, PrMC3 and Hsp70 might imply that ratoon cane was confronted with environmental stress in the soil, which possibly results from the presence of certain pathogens (pathogenic microbes or root-infecting nematodes) [44, 45] or other abiotic stresses in the ratooning system.

Differentially expressed microbial proteins under ratooning practice

The results from our experiments showed that the two proteins (spots 2, sugar ABC transporter and spot 5, ABC transporter ATP-binding subunit) linked to the membrane transport and one protein (spot 30, two-component system sensor kinase) related to signal transduction had higher expression levels in the ratoon cane soil, as compared to the plant cane and control soils (Table 4). ABC transporters are multicomponent systems, which include one or two integral membrane proteins that constitute the channel across the membrane, an ATP-binding protein that hydrolyzes ATP and drives the transport, and in most cases, an extracellular solute-binding protein [46]. ABC transport systems play an important role in many different aspects of bacterial physiology, facilitating the import of nutrients, and in the extrusion of toxins and antimicrobial agents [47]. Sugar ABC transporters facilitate the transport of a variety of sugars. Some microorganisms utilize highly efficient sugar ABC transporters to survive when substrate concentrations are extremely low [48]. The two-component system sensor kinase (spot 30) was also found to be up-regulated in our study. The two-component system is one of the signal transduction systems in microorganisms that consists of a sensor histidine kinase (SK) and a response regulator (RR). This system responds to a large number of environmental signals [49] and is postulated to play an important role in root colonization [50]. The up-regulation of the proteins involved in membrane transport and signal transduction might be related to the utilization of rhizodeposition by root-associated bacteria. This probably facilitates root colonization by these bacteria. Besides, most of proteins originated from fungi (including spot 3, mitochondrial N-glycosylase/DNA lyase; spot 7, ORP1; spot 20, kinesin-like protein and spot 34, isocitrate dehydrogenase) showed higher expression levels in ratoon cane soil than in the plant cane and control soils (Table 4). The functional gene expression differences in soil microbial communities are probably mediated by a change in the amount and composition of root exudates [51, 52].

Despite the limited number of soil proteins identified, our metaproteomic analysis results, combined with soil enzyme assays and CLPP analysis, provide a solid foundation to understand the interactions between the soil organisms and plants in the soil ecosystem. Environmental metaproteomics has been demonstrated to be a useful tool for structural and functional characterization of microbial communities in their natural habitat [53, 54], with an increasing improvement in MS performance [55] and soil protein extraction [56]. Metaproteomics is most powerful when combined with metagenomics or when using unmatched metagenomic datasets [57].

Conclusion

Our experiments revealed that ratooning practice significantly decreased the activity of soil enzymes, catabolic activity, and Shannon’s diversity and evenness indices. The comparative soil metaproteomics revealed that sugarcane ratooning induced changes in the expression levels of soil proteins originated from the plants, microbes and fauna. A majority of up-regulated plant proteins were found to be related to carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism and stress response, while most of up-regulated microbial proteins were involved in membrane transport and signal transduction. In conclusion, sugarcane ratooning practice induced great changes in the soil enzyme activities, the catabolic diversity of microbial community and the expression level of soil proteins. These changes were found to influence the biochemical processes in the rhizosphere ecosystem and mediated the interactions between plants and soil microbes. The soil proteins identified in our study are almost certainly a small part of the diversity of proteins that were expressed by the plants and soil microbial communities. Yet, environmental metaproteomics is a powerful tool to study plant-microbe interactions in soil.

Methods

Site description and soil sampling

The sugarcane cultivar ‘Gan-nang’ was used in this study. The study plots were completely randomized and located at the experimental farm (26°09′N, 119°23′E) of Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory for Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, P. R. China. The first site (defined as ‘RS’) was a field used for ratoon sugarcane cultivation, in which sugarcane was newly planted on February 15, 2009 and then ratooned in 2010. The second site (defined as ‘NS’) was a field kept fallow in 2009 and then used for newly planted sugarcane cultivation on February 15, 2010. The field with no sugarcane crop (bare fallow) during the entire experimental period of 2 years was used as a control (defined as ‘CK’). These three different treatments (‘CK’, ‘NS’ and ‘RS’) were organized within a single field site and under the same field management conditions during the entire experimental period. Three replicates were taken for each treatment. Approximately, 150 grams of soil samples from 3 cultivation patterns were obtained from 5 random locations on each plot in September 15, 2010. Soil sampling of all three treatments was carried out at the same time in order to minimize the effect of year-to-year environmental variability. The plot samples were mixed to make composite samples. The intact roots were carefully uprooted with a forked spade and shaken to remove loosely attached soil. The rhizospheric soil tightly attached to the roots was collected and then sieved through 2 mm mesh to remove plant roots, leaf remains, insects, etc. The fresh soil samples were immediately used for soil enzyme and BIOLOG analysis. For protein extraction, the soil samples were dried at 70°C for 2 h, pulverized in a mortar, and sieved through a 0.45 mm mesh to extract soil proteins.

Sucrose content and theoretical production determination

The sucrose content was determined by Extech Portable Sucrose Brix Refractometer (Mid-State Instruments, CA, USA) on December 15, 2010 and calculated by using the formula [58]: sucrose (%) = brix (%)×1.0825-7.703. Meanwhile, the theoretical production of sugarcane was calculated according to the following equations [58]: (1) Single stalk weight (kg) = [stalk diameter (cm)]2×[stalk height (cm)-30]×1 (g/cm3)×0.7854/1000; (2) Theoretical production (kg/hm2) = single stalk weight (kg)×productive stem numbers (hm-2).

Soil enzyme assays

The activities of five soil enzymes involved in the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus and stress responses, i.e., invertase (E.C. 3.2.1.26), urease (E.C. 3.5.1.5), acid phosphomonoesterase (E.C. 3.1.3.2), polyphenol oxidase (E.C. 1.10.3.1) and peroxidase (E.C. 1.11.1.7) were determined immediately from freshly sampled soil. Invertase and urease activities were measured following the method of Wang et al. [59] with 8% sucrose and 10% urea (w/v) as substrates, respectively. Acid phosphomonoesterase was assayed with 50 mM p-nitrophenyl phosphate (PNP) as substrate according to the method of Carine et al. [60]. Polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase activities were determined as described by Yu et al. [61] using 1% pyrogallic acid as substrate. Three replicates for each soil sample were taken to perform enzyme assays.

BIOLOG analysis

Community level physiological profiles (CLPP) were assessed by the BIOLOG Eco MicroPlate™ system (Biolog Inc., CA, USA) according to the method of Lin et al. [62]. Three technical replicates were performed for each treatment. The plates were incubated at 25°C for 168 h, and the color development in each well was recorded as optical density (OD) at 590 nm with a plate reader (Thermo Scientific Multiskan MK3, Shanghai, China) at regular 24 h-intervals.

Microbial activity in each microplate, expressed as average well-color development (AWCD) was determined as follows: AWCD = ∑(C-R)/31, where C is the optical density within each well, R is the absorbance value of the plate control well. The 31 carbon substrates in ECO microplates were subdivided into six categories (polymers, carbohydrates, carboxylic acids, amino acids, amines and phenolic compounds) following Choi et al.’s method [63]. The optical density at 96 h incubation time was used to calculate diversity and evenness indices as well as principal component analysis [62], since it was the shortest incubation time that provided the best resolution for all treatments [20].

Protein extraction and purification

The soil proteins from cultivated samples were extracted and purified by the following protocol developed in our lab [17]. Briefly, 1 g of dry cultivated soil powder were extracted using 5 mL of 0.05 M citrate buffer (pH 8.0) and 5 mL of 1.25% SDS buffer (1.25% w/v SDS, 0.1 M Tris-HCl, pH 6.8, 20 mM DTT), respectively. Citrate extract and SDS extract were shaken for 30 min with 2 mL of buffered phenol (pH 8.0). The two phases were separated by centrifugation for 30 min at 12 000 rpm at 4°C. The proteins in the lower phenol phase were precipitated with 6-fold volume of 0.1 M ammonium acetate dissolved in methanol at -20°C for 6 h. Proteins were recovered by centrifugation for 25 min at 12 000 rpm at 4°C. The pellet was washed once with cold methanol and twice with cold acetone. The washed pellets obtained from citrate extraction and SDS extraction were mixed, air-dried and stored at -80°C until further use.

2D-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) of extracted proteins

The protein pellets were dissolved in appropriate lysis solution (7 M urea, 2 M thiourea, 65 mM DTT, 4% CHAPS, 0.05% v/v ampholytes pH 3.5-10). Protein concentration was determined by Bradford assay using dilutions of bovine serum albumin as standards. 2-D gel electrophoresis (2-DE) was performed as described by Wang et al. [17]. The prepared protein samples were separated by isoelectric focusing (IEF, pH 5–8) in the first dimension, and SDS-PAGE (5% acrylamide stacking gel and a 10% acrylamide separating gel) in the second dimension. After electrophoresis, 2-DE gels were stained with silver nitrate [64]. The gels were scanned using the Image Master (version 5.0, GE Healthcare, Uppsala, Sweden) and analyzed with ImageMaster™ 2D Platinum software (version 5.0, GE Healthcare, Uppsala, Sweden). Repeatability analysis of 2-DE maps of soil proteins was carried out through scatter plots with ImageMaster™ 2D Platinum according to the manufacturer’s instructions. To compensate for subtle differences in sample loading, gel staining, and destaining, the volume of each spot (i.e., spot abundance) was normalized as a relative volume, that is, the spot volume was divided by the total volume over the whole set of gel spots. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated from spots of the gels from three independent experiments and used as error bars. Only those with significant and reproducible changes were considered to be differentially expressed proteins (differing by > 1.5-fold).

MALDI-MS and protein identification

The interesting protein spots were excised manually from gels for mass spectrometric analysis and the in-gel digestion of proteins were performed as described by Wang et al. [17]. Thereafter, 1 μl of the abovementioned solution was spotted onto stainless steel sample target plates. Peptide mass spectra were obtained on a Bruker UltraFlex III MALDI TOF/TOF mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics, Karlsruhe, Germany). Data were acquired in the positive MS reflector mode using 6 external standards for the instrument calibration (Peptide Calibration Standard II, Bruker Daltonics). Mass spectra were obtained for each sampled spot by accumulating of 600-800 laser shots in an 800-5,000 Da mass range. For the MS/MS spectra, 5 most abundant precursor ions per sample were selected for subsequent fragmentation, and 1,000-1,200 Da laser shots were accumulated per precursor ion. The criterion for precursor selection was a minimum S/N of 50.

BioTools 3.1 and the MASCOT 2.2.03 search engine were used to automate database searching. Both MS/MS and MS data were used for the identification of proteins with the following selection criteria: NCBInr database (release 20110409, 13655082 sequences; 4686307983 residues), taxonomy of all entries followed by ‘Bacteria’ or ‘Fungi’ database, trypsin of the digestion enzyme, one missed cleavage site, parent ion mass tolerance at 100 ppm, MS/MS mass tolerance of 0.5 Da, carbamidomethylation of cysteine (global modification), and methionine oxidation (variable modification). The probability score (95% confidence interval) calculated by the software was used as criteria for correct identification [57].

Due to the vast varieties of soil sample sources, the mass spectra were searched against databases step by step. Firstly, ‘all entries’ in NCBInr, which include all organisms, was selected for the search. Then, the ‘Bacteria’ and ‘Fungi’ databases were separately selected to avoid the failed matching when ‘all entries’ was used. The above strategy alleviated the problem of missing some of the mass spectra for matches in searching against ‘all entries’, and allowed significant matching results by searching against ‘Bacteria’ and ‘Fungi’ databases. Both MS/MS and MS data were used for the identification of proteins. The proteins sharing equal searches by MS/MS and MS were preferentially selected. Furthermore, the proteins that matched at least two MS/MS peptides or six peptide mass fingerprintings (PMFs) were subjected to further identification. Only the proteins with the highest score and similar predicted molecular mass were selected.

Gene ontology and KEGG pathway analysis

Gene Ontology (GO) annotations for the identified soil proteins were assigned according to those reported in the uniprot database [65]. WEGO (Web Gene Ontology Annotation Plotting) tool [66] was used for plotting GO annotation results at GO level 2 as described by Ye et al. [67]. Furthermore, these proteins were used to search KEGG database [68] to obtain reference pathways.

Notes

Abbreviations

AWCD: 

Average well-color development

BP: 

Biological process

CC: 

Cellular component

CK: 

Control (with no sugarcane crop)

CLPP: 

Community level physiological profiles

2-DE: 

2D-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis

GO: 

Gene Ontology

KEGG: 

Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes

MF: 

Molecular function

NS: 

Plant cane

PC: 

Principal component

PCA: 

Principal component analysis

RS: 

Ratoon cane

SDS-PAGE: 

Sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis

WEGO: 

Web Gene Ontology Annotation Plotting.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 30772729, 30671220, 31070403), the National Key Basic Research Program of China (Grant nos. 2012CB126309, U1205021) and the earmarked fund for Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System projected by Ministry of Agriculture, China.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Key Laboratory of Biopesticide and Chemical Biology, Ministry of Education, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
(2)
Agroecological Institute, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
(3)
College of Oceanography and Environmental Science, Xiamen University

References

  1. Crane DR, Spreen TH: A model of the stubble replacement decision for Florida sugarcane growers. South J Agr Econ. 1980, 12: 55-63.Google Scholar
  2. Shukla SK, Yadav RL, Suman A, Singh PN: Improving rhizospheric environment and sugarcane ratoon yield through bioagents amended farm yard manure in udic ustochrept soil. Soil Till Res. 2008, 99: 158-168. 10.1016/j.still.2008.02.007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Lin WX, Chen T, Zhou MM: New dimensions in agroecology. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture. 2012, 20: 253-264. 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2012.00253.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Garside AL, Smith MA, Chapman LS, Hurney AP, Magarey RC: The yield plateau in the Australian sugar industry: 1970–1990. Intensive sugarcane production, meeting the challenges beyond 2000. Edited by: Keating BA, Wilson JR. 1997, Wallingford: CAB International, 103-124.Google Scholar
  5. Gascho GJ, Ruelke OC, West SH: Residual effect of germination temperature in sugarcane. Crop Sci. 1973, 13: 274-276. 10.2135/cropsci1973.0011183X001300020037x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Magarey RC: Microbiological aspects of sugarcane yield decline. Aust J Agr Res. 1996, 47: 307-322. 10.1071/AR9960307.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Pankhurst CE, Magarey RC, Stirling GR, Blair BL, Bell MJ, Garside AL: Management practices to improve soil health and reduce the effects of detrimental soil biota associated with yield decline of sugarcane in Queensland. Soil Till Res. 2003, 72: 125-137. 10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00083-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Pankhurst CE, Blair BL, Magarey RC, Stirling GR, Bell MJ, Garside AL: Effect of rotation breaks and organic matter amendments on the capacity of soils to develop biological suppression towards soil organisms associated with yield decline of sugarcane. Appl Soil Ecol. 2005, 28: 271-282. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2004.07.010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Stirling GR, Blair BL, Pattemore JA, Garside AL, Bell MJ: Changes in nematode populations on sugarcane following fallow, fumigation and crop rotation, and implications for the role of nematodes in yield decline. Australas Plant Path. 2001, 30: 323-335. 10.1071/AP01044.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Marschner P: Plant-microbe interactions in the rhizosphere and nutrient cycling. Nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. Volume 10. Edited by: Marschner P, Rengel Z. 2007, Berlin: Springer, 159-182.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Pini F, Frascella A, Santopolo L, Bazzicalupo M, Biondi EG, Scotti C, Mengoni A: Exploring the plant-associated bacterial communities in Medicago sativa L. BMC Microbiol. 2012, 12: 78-10.1186/1471-2180-12-78.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Mukerji KG, Manoharachary C: Rhizosphere biology- an overview. Microbial activity in the rhizosphere. Volume 7. Edited by: Mukerji KG, Manoharachary C, Singh J. 2006, Berlin: Springer, 1-39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernàndez-Guerra A, Buchan A, Mou X, Casamayor EO, González JM: T-RFPred: a nucleotide sequence size prediction tool for microbial community description based on terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism chromatograms. BMC Microbiol. 2010, 10: 262-10.1186/1471-2180-10-262.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Ying Y, Lv Z, Min H, Cheng J: Dynamic changes of microbial community diversity in a photohydrogen producing reactor monitored by PCR-DGGE. J Environ Sci. 2008, 20: 1118-1125. 10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62158-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacobsen C, Holben W: Quantification of mRNA in Salmonella sp. seeded soil and chicken manure using magnetic capture hybridization RT-PCR. J Microbiol Methods. 2007, 69: 315-321. 10.1016/j.mimet.2007.02.001.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffin TJ, Gygi SP, Ideker T, Rist B, Eng J, Hood L, Aebersold R: Complementary profiling of gene expression at the transcriptome and proteome levels in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2002, 1: 323-333. 10.1074/mcp.M200001-MCP200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang HB, Zhang ZX, Li H, He HB, Fang CX, Zhang AJ, Li QS, Chen RS, Guo XK, Lin HF, Wu LK, Lin S, Chen T, Lin RY, Peng XX, Lin WX: Characterization of metaproteomics in crop rhizospheric soil. J Proteome Res. 2011, 10: 932-940. 10.1021/pr100981r.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Maron PA, Ranjard L, Mougel C, Lemanceau P: Metaproteomics: a new approach for studying functional microbial ecology. Microb Ecol. 2007, 53: 486-493. 10.1007/s00248-006-9196-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Taylor E, Williams M: Microbial protein in soil: Influence of extraction method and C amendment on extraction and recovery. Microb Ecol. 2010, 59: 390-399. 10.1007/s00248-009-9593-x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomez E, Ferreras L, Toresani S: Soil bacterial functional diversity as influenced by organic amendment application. Bioresour Technol. 2006, 97: 1484-1489. 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.06.021.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Palviainen M, Raekallio M, Vainionpää M, Kosonen S, Vainio O: Proteomic profiling of dog urine after European adder (Vipera berus berus) envenomation by two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis. Toxicon. 2012, 60: 1228-1234. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.08.010.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Qi JJ, Yao HY, Ma XJ, Zhou LL, Li XN: Soil microbial community composition and diversity in the rhizosphere of a Chinese medicinal plant. Commun Soil Sci Plan. 2009, 40: 1462-1482. 10.1080/00103620902818104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Li CG, Li XM, Kong WD, Wu Y, Wang JG: Effect of monoculture soybean on soil microbial community in the Northeast China. Plant Soil. 2010, 330: 423-433. 10.1007/s11104-009-0216-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Qu XH, Wang JG: Effect of amendments with different phenolic acids on soil microbial biomass, activity, and community diversity. Appl Soil Ecol. 2008, 39: 172-179. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.12.007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu FZ, Wang XZ, Xue CY: Effect of cinnamic acid on soil microbial characteristics in the cucumber rhizosphere. Eur J Soil Biol. 2009, 45: 356-362. 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2009.04.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunsigi G: Sugarcane in Agriculture and Industry. 2001, Bangalore: Prism Books Pvt LtdGoogle Scholar
  27. Pankhurst CE, Magarey RC, Stirling GR, Holt JA, Brown JD: Rotation-induced changes in soil biological properties and their effect on yield decline in sugarcane. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol. 1999, 21: 79-86.Google Scholar
  28. Whipps JM: Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere. J Exp Bot. 2001, 52: 487-511. 10.1093/jexbot/52.suppl_1.487.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Gómez-Luna BE, De la Luz Ruiz-Aguilar GM, Vázquez-Marrufo G, Dendooven L, Olalde-Portugal V: Enzyme activities and metabolic profiles of soil microorganisms at KILN sites in Quercus spp. temperate forests of central Mexico. Appl Soil Ecol. 2012, 52: 48-55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Puglisi E, Del Re AAM, Rao MA, Gianfreda L: Development and validation of numerical indexes integrating enzyme activities of soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 2006, 38: 1673-1681. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.11.021.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Gomez E, Garland J, Conti M: Reproducibility in the response of soil bacterial community-level physiological profiles from a land use intensification gradient. Appl Soil Ecol. 2004, 26: 21-30. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2003.10.007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Papatheodorou EM, Efthimiadou E, Stamou GP: Functional diversity of soil bacteria as affected by management practices and phenological stage of Phaseolus vulgaris. Eur J Soil Biol. 2008, 44: 429-436. 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2008.06.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Preston-Mafham J, Boddy L, Randerson PF: Analysis of microbial community functional diversity using sole-carbonsource utilization profiles – a critique. FEMS Microb Ecol. 2002, 42: 1-14.Google Scholar
  34. Singh G, Mukerji KG: Root Exudates as determinant of rhizospheric microbial biodiversity. Microbial activity in the rhizosphere. Volume 7. Edited by: Mukerji KG, Manoharachary C, Singh J. 2006, Berlin: Springer, 39-53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Hadacek F, Gunther FF: Plant root carbohydrates affect growth behaviour of endophytic microfungi. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2002, 41: 161-170. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00977.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Foyer CH, Mullineaux PM: Causes of photooxidative stres and amelioration of defense dystems in Plants. 1994, Boca Raton: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Baker CJ, Orlandi EW: Active oxygen in plant pathogenesis. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1995, 33: 299-321. 10.1146/annurev.py.33.090195.001503.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Härndahl U, Hall RB, Osteryoung KW, Vierling E, Bornman JF, Sundby C: The chloroplast small heat shock protein undergoes oxidation-dependent conformational changes and may protect plants from oxidative stress. Cell Stress Chaperon. 1999, 4: 129-138. 10.1379/1466-1268(1999)004<0129:TCSHSP>2.3.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Groom QJ, Torres MA, Fordham-Skelton AP, Hammond-Kosack KE, Robinson NJ, Jones JD: rbohA, a rice homologue of the mammalian gp91phox respiratory burst oxidase gene. Plant J. 1996, 10: 515-522. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1996.10030515.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Jelenska J, van Hal JA, Greenberg JT: Pseudomonas syringae hijacks plant stress chaperone machinery for virulence. PNAS. 2010, 107: 13177-13182. 10.1073/pnas.0910943107.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Walden AR, Walter C, Gardner RC: Genes expressed in pinus radiata male cones include homologs to anther-specific and pathogenesis response genes. Plant Physiol. 1999, 121: 1103-1116. 10.1104/pp.121.4.1103.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Pontier D, Godiard L, Marco Y, Roby D: hsr203J, a tobacco gene whose activation is rapid, highly localized and specific for incompatible plant/pathogen interactions. Plant J. 1994, 5: 507-521. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1994.5040507.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhou YL, Xu MR, Zhao MF, Xie XW, Zhu LH, Fu BY, Li ZK: Genome-wide gene responses in a transgenic rice line carrying the maize resistance geneRxo1to the rice bacterial streak pathogen, Xanthomonas oryzaepv. Oryzicola.BMC Genomics. 2010, 11: 78-10.1186/1471-2164-11-78.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Magarey RC: Yield decline of sugarcane. Current trends in sugarcane pathology. Edited by: Rao GP, Gillaspie AGJr, Upadhyaya PP, Bergamin A, Agnihotri VP, Chen CT. 1994, Pitampura: International Books and Periodicals Supply Service, 393-412.Google Scholar
  45. Stirling GR, Blair BL, Whittle PJL: Nematode pests: their role in yield decline of sugarcane and opportunities for improved management practices. Sugarcane: Research towards efficient and sustainable production. Edited by: Wilson JR, Hogarth DM, Campbell JA, Garside AL. 1996, Brisbane: CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, 228-229.Google Scholar
  46. Nataf Y, Yaron S, Stahl F, Lamed R, Bayer EA, Scheper TH, Sonenshein AL, Shoham Y: Cellodextrin and laminaribiose ABC transporters in Clostridium thermocellum. J Bacteriol. 2009, 191: 203-209. 10.1128/JB.01190-08.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Davidson AL, Chen J: ATP-binding cassette transporters in bacteria. Annu Rev Biochem. 2004, 73: 241-268. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.73.011303.073626.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Elferink MG, Albers SV, Konings WN, Driessen AJ: Sugar transport in Sulfolobus solfataricus is mediated by two families of binding protein-dependent ABC transporters. Mol Microbiol. 2001, 39: 1494-1503. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2001.02336.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Barrett JF, Hoch JA: Two-component signal transduction as a target for microbial anti-infective therapy. Antimicrob Agents Ch. 1998, 42: 1529-1536.Google Scholar
  50. Dekkers LC, Bloemendaal CJP, de Weger LA, Wijffelman CA, Spaink HP, Lugtenberg BJ: A two-component system plays an important role in the root-colonizing ability of Pseudomonas fluorescens strain WCS365. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 1998, 11: 45-56. 10.1094/MPMI.1998.11.1.45.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Chaparro JM, Badri DV, Bakker MG, Sugiyama A, Manter DK, Vivanco JM: Root exudation of phytochemicals in Arabidopsis follows specific patterns that are developmentally programmed and correlate with soil microbial functions. PLoS ONE. 2013, 8: e55731-10.1371/journal.pone.0055731.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Trivedi P, He Z, Van Nostrand JD, Albrigo G, Zhou J, Wang N: Huanglongbing alters the structure and functional diversity of microbial communities associated with citrus rhizosphere. The ISME Journal. 2012, 6: 363-383. 10.1038/ismej.2011.100.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Schneider T, Keiblinger KM, Schmid E, Sterflinger-Gleixner K, Ellersdorfer G, Roschitzki B, Richter A, Eberl L, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Riedel K: Who is who in litter decomposition? Metaproteomics reveals major microbial players and their biogeochemical functions. ISME J. 2012, 6: 1749-1762. 10.1038/ismej.2012.11.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Hettich RL, Sharma R, Chourey K, Giannone RJ: Microbial metaproteomics: identifying the repertoire of proteins that microorganisms use to compete and cooperate in complex environmental communities. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2012, 15: 373-380. 10.1016/j.mib.2012.04.008.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Hettich RL, Pan C, Chourey K, Giannone RJ: Metaproteomics: Harnessing the power of high performance mass spectrometry to identify the suite of proteins that control metabolic activities in microbial communities. Anal Chem. 2013, 85: 4203-4214. 10.1021/ac303053e.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Keiblinger KM, Wilhartitz IC, Schneider T, Roschitzki B, Schmid E, Eberl L, Riedel K, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S: Soil metaproteomics - Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols. Soil Biol Biochem. 2012, 54: 14-24.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Erickson AR, Cantarel BL, Lamendella R, Darzi Y, Mongodin EF, Pan C, Shah M, Halfvarson J, Tysk C, Henrissat B, Raes J, Verberkmoes NC, Fraser CM, Hettich RL, Jansson JK: Integrated metagenomics/metaproteomics reveals human host-microbiota signatures of Crohn's disease. PLoS ONE. 2012, 7: e49138-10.1371/journal.pone.0049138.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Chen RK, Lin YQ, Zhang YB, Sun ZC: One hundred questions for sugarcane technique. 2009, Beijing: China Agriculture PressGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang QY, Zhou DM, Cang L: Microbial and enzyme properties of apple orchard soil as affected by long-term application of copper fungicide. Soil Biol Biochem. 2009, 41: 1504-1509. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.04.010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Carine F, Capowiez Y, Stéven C: Enzyme activities in apple orchard agroecosystems: How are they affected by management strategy and soil properties. Soil Biol Biochem. 2009, 41: 61-68. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.09.018.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Yu XZ, Wu SC, Wu FY, Wong MH: Enhanced dissipation of PAHs from soil using mycorrhizal ryegrass and PAH-degrading bacteria. J Hazard Mater. 2011, 186: 1206-1217. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.11.116.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Lin RY, Rong H, Zhou JJ, Yu CP, Ye CY, Chen LS, Lin WX: Impact of allelopathic rice seedlings on rhizospheric microbial populations and their functional diversity. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2007, 27: 3644-3654. 10.1016/S1872-2032(07)60078-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Choi KH, Dobbs FC: Comparison of two kinds of Biolog microplates (GN and ECO) in their ability to distinguish among aquatic microbial communities. J Microbiol Meth. 1999, 36: 203-213. 10.1016/S0167-7012(99)00034-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Blum H, Beiers H, Gross HJ: Improved silver staining of plant proteins, RNA and DNA in polyacrylamide gels. Electrophoresis. 1987, 8: 93-99. 10.1002/elps.1150080203.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Uniprot Database. http://www.uniprot.org,
  66. WEGO-Web Gene Ontology Annotation Plotting. http://wego.genomics.org.cn/cgi-bin/wego/index.pl,
  67. Ye J, Fang L, Zheng H, Zhang Y, Chen J, Zhang Z, Wang J, Li S, Li R, Bolund L, Wang J: WEGO: a web tool for plotting GO annotations. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34: 293-297. 10.1093/nar/gkl031.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. KEGG-Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. http://www.genome.jp/kegg,

Copyright

© Lin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.