Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jun 11;15(6):e0234562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234562

Survival of Escherichia coli O157 in autoclaved and natural sandy soil mesocosms

Christopher A Baker 1, Shinyoung Lee 2, Jaysankar De 1, Kwangcheol C Jeong 2, Keith R Schneider 1,*
Editor: Luigimaria Borruso3
PMCID: PMC7289397  PMID: 32525952

Abstract

While the soil microbiome may influence pathogen survival, determining the major contributors that reduce pathogen survival is inconclusive. This research was performed to determine the survival of E. coli O157 in autoclaved and natural (unautoclaved) sandy soils. Soils were inoculated with three different E. coli O157 strains (stx1+/stx2+, stx1-/stx2-, and stx1-/stx2+), and enumerated until extinction at 30°C. There was a significant difference in the survival of E. coli O157 based on soil treatment (autoclaved versus natural) at 30°C on days 1 (P = 0.00022), 3, (P = 2.53e-14), 7 (P = 5.59e-16), 14 (P = 1.072e-12), 30 (P = 7.18e-9), and 56 (P = 0.00029), with greater survival in autoclaved soils. The time to extinction (two consecutive negative enrichments) for all three strains was 169 and 84 days for autoclaved and natural soils, respectively. A separate E. coli O157 trial supplemented with 16S rRNA gene sequencing of the soil microbiome was performed at 15°C and 30°C on days 0, 7, 14, and 28 for each soil treatment. Greater species richness (Chao1, P = 2.2e-16) and diversity (Shannon, P = 2.2e-16) was observed in natural soils in comparison with autoclaved soils. Weighted UniFrac (beta-diversity) showed a clear distinction between soil treatments (P = 0.001). The greatest reduction of E. coli O157 was observed in natural soils at 30°C, and several bacterial taxa positively correlated (relative abundance) with time (day 0 to 28) in these soils (P < 0.05), suggesting that the presence of those bacteria might cause the reduction of E. coli O157. Taken together, a clear distinction in E. coli O157 survival, was observed between autoclaved and natural soils along with corresponding differences in microbial diversity in soil treatments. This research provides further insights into the bacterial taxa that may influence E. coli O157 in soils.

Introduction

Contamination of fresh produce due to Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is a major concern for the produce industry. This has been highlighted by several high-profile E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks such as the spinach outbreak in 2006 with 199 illnesses, 102 hospitalizations, and three deaths from 26 states [1, 2]. Overall, produce-related foodborne outbreaks over the past several decades led to the implementation of the Produce Safety Rule (PSR) within the US Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which was enacted in 2011 [3]. Even with the new regulation, the produce industry still struggles with outbreaks, which is exemplified by the two 2018 romaine lettuce outbreaks [4, 5] and the more recent 2019 romaine lettuce outbreak [6]. The PSR puts tremendous emphasis on water quality for both pre- and post-harvest use, while the use of soil amendments is somewhat undefined. Subpart F within the PSR focuses on biological soil amendments of animal origin (BSSAO), and the current harvest interval for untreated BSAAO is ‘reserved’ until a feasible and data-driven regulation can be set [7].

Many studies have focused on the survival of foodborne pathogens in manure-amended and non-amended soils [810]. Variation in survival duration can vary considerably depending on abiotic factors such as temperature, soil type, and soil structure [1114]. In addition to abiotic factors, determining the influence of indigenous soil microbiota on pathogens contributes to the understanding of pathogen survival within soil environments prior to the harvest of produce.

It has been suggested that soils with a more diverse bacterial taxa profile are less likely to be colonized by a foreign microbe introduced into the soil [15]. This concept has been evaluated with a focus on foodborne pathogen establishment and survival in soils based on biodiversity [10, 1623] although few studies have identified specific bacterial taxa within soils that may cause variation in pathogen survival [19]. Previous studies have investigated the influence of biotic factors on pathogen survival by altering and/or eliminating microbial populations in soil [17, 23] or compost [18] via steam sterilization (autoclaving) for comparison with natural (unautoclaved) soils. Greater survival of E. coli O157 has been observed in autoclaved soils when compared to natural soils [17, 20, 23, 24], which suggests that certain soil microorganisms that are reduced by heat treatments likely contribute to the reduction of E. coli O157 in soils.

This study was performed to further elucidate E. coli O157 survival in soil commonly used for agriculture in Florida, with an altered bacterial taxa profile following heat treatment. The survival of three E. coli O157 strains with different stx types was evaluated until extinction in autoclaved and natural sandy soil at 30°C, and an additional trial implementing metagenomic analysis was performed to identify soil bacteria that may impact E. coli O157 survival in autoclaved and natural soil at 15 and 30°C. This research provides an analysis of bacterial taxa that may contribute to E. coli O157 survival in sandy soil.

Methods

Soil and mesocosm preparation

Soil was collected from the University of Florida’s Suwannee Valley Agricultural Experiment Station in Live Oak, FL in plastic-lined coolers, transported to the laboratory and stored at room temperature until further use. The soil site was selected based on previous studies investigating pathogen survival in soil [13] and to represent Floridian soils. Two soil treatments were performed to obtain autoclaved and natural soil as previously described [25]. Prior to autoclave treatment, soil was sieved (2 mm) and sterile spring water (Nestle Waters North America Inc., Stamford, CT) was added in 100 mL increments with subsequent mixing to obtain a 60% volumetric water content (VWC), measured with a GS3 soil moisture probe (Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, WA).

Soil was incubated at room temperature for 48 h to promote the growth of natural microbiota. Soil was autoclaved (121°C, 15 PSI) for 1 h, and subsequently incubated at room temperature for 48 h to promote regrowth of microbial populations. This procedure was repeated, and spring water was added as previously described to obtain a final 10% VWC. Soil was distributed into sterile sampling bags (7 x 12”) (Fisher) to obtain 1 kg mesocosms. For natural soil mesocosms, soil was dried in a fume hood for 72 h and sieved (2 mm) to remove rocks and plant material. Water was added to soil in 100 mL increments and mixed thoroughly to obtain a VWC of 10% as previously described. Mesocosms, weighing 1 kg, were established in sterile sampling bags with autoclaved and natural soil. Each mesocosm was incubated at room temperature for 48 h to promote microbial growth prior to inoculation. A subsample of autoclaved and natural soil was analyzed for organic matter content (Walkley-Black titration), pH, macro- and micronutrients (Mehlich-3 extraction and analysis via inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES)) at the UF IFAS Extension Soil Laboratory (Gainesville, FL). Soil texture analysis by hydrometer method [26] was performed to determine percent clay, silt, and sand by the UF Soil and Water Sciences Department.

Bacterial strains and inoculum preparation

The E. coli O157 strains used in this study have distinct stx-profiles (stx1+/stx2+ (6DL-17), stx1-/stx2- (5DOE-2), and stx1-/stx2+ (9OLM-10) and were obtained from bovine manure in Florida during previous research [27]. Cultures were streaked for isolation from cryovials onto tryptic soy agar (Difco, Sparks, MD) supplemented with 80 mg L-1 rifampin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ) (TSAR) and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. An isolated colony was transferred to 10 mL of tryptic soy broth (Difco) supplemented with 80 mg L-1 rifampin (TSBR) and incubated at 37°C for 18 h, 100 rpm. One mL was transferred to 100 mL of TSBR, and incubated at 37°C for 18 h, 100 rpm. After a final transfer and overnight growth as previously described, each culture was centrifuged at 1469 x g for 10 min. Supernatant was discarded, and cells were washed with 100 mL of 0.1% peptone water (PW) (Difco), vortexed for 10 s, and centrifuged as previously described. The cell wash step was repeated, and after the final centrifugation, cells were resuspended in 100 mL of 0.1% PW, vortexed for 10 s, and distributed into respective mesocosm bags in three consecutive 5 mL increments (15 mL total per mesocosm), with thorough mixing by hand after each inoculum addition for homogeneous distribution. One mL of each cell suspension was serially diluted in 9 mL of 0.1% PW, and the appropriate dilutions were plated onto TSAR and incubated for 24 h at 37°C to determine the starting inoculum concentration in each mesocosm.

E. coli O157 sampling until extinction in autoclaved and natural soil at 30°C

The survival of E. coli O157 strains in autoclaved and natural soil was evaluated in triplicate for each strain and soil treatment at 30°C (one strain per mesocosm, performed in triplicate for each soil treatment). On days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 30, 56, 84, 112, 139, and 169, 10 g of soil was transferred from each mesocosm into separate sterile sampling bags (7 x 12”) (Fisher) containing 90 mL of 0.1% PW and stomached for 1 min. Stomached slurry was diluted and plated on TSAR and incubated at 37°C for 24 h to determine the CFU g-1 of soil in each sample. For control mesocosms, dilutions were plated onto trypic soy agar (TSA) and incubated at 37°C for 24 h to determine the background microbiota in soils on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 30, 56, and 84. When mesocosm samples approached the limit of detection (LOD) (1 log10 CFU g-1 of soil), four 250 μL subsamples of stomached slurry was plated onto TSAR plates. If cell concentrations were below the LOD, a presence/absence detection method was performed– 10 mL of stomached slurry was added to 10 mL of double strength TSB supplemented with 160 mg L-1 rifampin, incubated at 37°C for 24 h, streaked onto TSAR, and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. A loopful of colonies (if present) were added to a 1.5 mL centrifuge tube containing 100 μL of DNA grade water (Fisher), heated at 100°C for 20 min, centrifuged at 10,000 x g for 10 min, and supernatant was stored at -20°C until further analysis. Quantitative PCR was performed to confirm the presence of E. coli O157 (rfbE target gene) as well as stx for respective mesocosm bags [25].

16S rRNA gene sequencing and analysis of microbial community in autoclaved and natural soil at 15 and 30°C

Based on the results observed in the extinction trials, a supplementary fourth trial was performed incorporating metagenomic analysis of the autoclaved and natural soils on days 0, 7, 14, and 28. E. coli O157 survival in the autoclaved and natural soils was examined at both 15 and 30°C on days 0, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 84, 112, and 140. Strain inoculum and soil treatments were prepared as previously described. Each strain (6DL-17, 5DOE-2, 9OLM-10) was separately inoculated into soil mesocosms for each soil treatment and incubation temperature (one trial). Mesocosm bags were sampled as previously described, and an additional 500 mg of soil was collected in a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube and stored at -80°C until further analysis. Soil DNA was extracted from 250 mg of soil with a DNeasy PowerSoil Kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD), adjusted to 10 ng/μL using DNA grade water (Fisher), and subjected to 16S rRNA gene PCR to amplify the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene with dual-index primers [28]. The PCR amplicons were purified and normalized with SequalPrep Normalization plate kit (Invitrogen, USA). DNA concentration was measured with a Qubit 3.0 Fluorometer (Invitrogen, USA), and the same amount of DNA was pooled from each sample to make a DNA library. Quality of the pooled DNA library was confirmed with the Agilent 2200 TapeStation System and qPCR, and the final DNA library was sequenced using Illumina MiSeq platform with a 2 × 250 cycle cartridge at the University of Florida Interdisciplinary Center for Biotechnology Research.

Raw sequencing data was analyzed by QIIME pipeline (1.9.0) [29]. Raw sequencing reads were demultiplexed, assembled to paired-end reads, and chimeric sequences were filtered with a usearch61 method. The filtered sequences were assigned to an operational taxonomic unit (OTU) based on Silva database (https://www.arb-silva.de/documentation/release-132/) with 99% identity. The final OTU table was rarefied to the lowest sequencing depth (26,853), and one sample (natural microcosms at 30°C on day 7) was excluded for further studies due to the lower number of reads.

The relative abundance of bacterial taxa between strains was averaged (n = 3) for each soil treatment at each temperature on days 0, 7, 14, and 28, except for natural microcosms at 30°C on day 7 (n = 2). Unassigned taxa and taxa in low relative abundance (less than 2.5%) were grouped as “Other”.

Statistical analysis

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the mean log CFU g-1 on each sampling day based on strain type. A Student’s two sample t-test was performed to compare differences in 1) mean log CFU g-1 based on soil treatment (P < 0.05) and 2) mean log CFU g-1 of uninoculated autoclaved and natural soils on each sampling day (days 0 to 84). Cell concentrations below the LOD of 1 log CFU g-1 were assigned a value of 5 CFU g-1 (0.69 log CFU g-1) for positive enrichments, which is halfway between the LOD and 0 CFU g-1, and 1 CFU g-1 (0 log CFU g-1) for negative enrichments. To compare dissimilarity of microbiota structures between treatments, an analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was applied based on weighted UniFrac distances using QIIME. The alpha diversity (diversity within samples) was determined between treatments using Chao1 and Shannon diversity index [30]. Pearson correlations were performed on 30°C natural soils to determine bacterial taxa that positively correlated with time. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 3.4.3 (http://www.R-project.org). All statistics were performed at a significance level 0.05.

Results

Strains and soil

The strains used in this study were obtained from a bovine manure survey in Florida [25]. The soil (Candler sand) used in this study was obtained from the University of Florida’s Suwannee Valley Agricultural Experiment Station (Live Oak, FL), which consisted of high levels of sand (97.52%) and low levels of clay (1.66%) and silt (0.83%). Similar pH (7.3), organic matter (0.50–0.57%), macro- and micronutrient levels were observed between autoclaved and natural soils, with the exception of manganese (Mn), which was more extractable in autoclaved soil (31.2 mg kg-1) in comparison to natural soil (14.2 mg kg-1).

Indigenous soil microbiota in autoclaved and natural soil at 30°C

Background microbial population levels for autoclaved and natural soils ranged from 5.63 and 7.59 log CFU g-1 from days 0 to 84 for both soil treatments at 30°C. There were minimal differences (P > 0.05) in culturable soil microbial populations over 84 days of incubation at 30°C. There was a significant difference in indigenous soil microbiota between uninoculated autoclaved and natural soils only on days 1 (P = 0.014) and 3 (P = 0.035), with similar concentrations among treatments observed thereafter (Table 1).

Table 1. Aerobic plate counts log CFU g-1 in uninoculated autoclaved and natural soil mesocosms over 84 days of incubation at 30°C.

Day Log CFU g-1
Autoclaved Soila Natural Soila
0 7.39 ± 0.37a 7.59 ± 0.04a
1 7.49 ± 0.38a 6.35 ± 0.27b
3 6.65 ± 0.28a 5.63 ± 0.49b
7 7.30 ± 0.64a 5.96 ± 0.12a
14 7.08 ± 0.50a 5.97 ± 0.12a
30 6.78 ± 0.44a 6.14 ± 0.33a
56 6.73 ± 0.44a 5.94 ± 0.14a
84 6.78 ± 0.39a 6.35 ± 0.22a

aMeans (n = 3) with the same letter in each row (a to b) are not significantly different (P > 0.05). Values represent log CFU g-1 mean ± standard deviation

E. coli O157 survival based on soil treatment and strain

There was a significant difference in E. coli O157 mean log CFU g-1 based on soil treatment at 30°C on days 1 (P = 0.00022), 3 (P = 2.53e-14), 7 (P = 5.59e-16), 14 (P = 1.072e-12), 30 (P = 7.18e-9), and 56 (P = 0.00029) (Table 2). The first strain to reach the LOD (1 log CFU g-1) was E. coli O157 stx1+/stx2+ on day 30 in natural soil and E. coli O157 stx1-/stx2+ on day 56 in autoclaved soils. All three strains were below the LOD on day 139 and 56 for autoclaved and natural soils at 30°C, respectively. Total extinction (two consecutive negative enrichments, all three strains) was observed on day 169 and 84 for autoclaved and natural soils, respectively (Table 2). There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in mean log CFU g-1 of individual strains evaluated in both autoclaved and natural soil at 30°C on any sampling day (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparison of E. coli O157 log CFU g-1 at 30°C until extinction.

Day Autoclaved Soila Natural Soila
stx1+/stx2+ stx1-/stx2- stx1-/stx2+ stx1+/stx2+ stx1-/stx2- stx1-/stx2+
0 7.22 ± 0.21a 7.22 ± 0.12a 7.22 ± 0.31a 7.09 ± 0.27a 6.97 ± 0.03a 7.16 ± 0.08a
1 7.48 ± 0.03a 7.55 ± 0.13a 7.58 ± 0.03a 7.11 ± 0.21b 6.91 ± 0.39b 7.09 ± 0.37b
3 7.37 ± 0.17a 7.38 ± 0.05a 7.40 ± 0.12a 5.82 ± 0.08b 6.01 ± 0.10b 5.88 ± 0.18b
7 7.24 ± 0.07a 7.25 ± 0.03a 7.29 ± 0.27a 5.12 ± 0.14b 5.33 ± 0.04b 5.20 ± 0.12b
14 7.07 ± 0.24a 7.17 ± 0.37a 6.47 ± 0.11a 4.17 ± 0.12b 4.15 ± 0.13b 4.12 ± 0.15b
30 5.77 ± 0.43a 5.96 ± 0.90a 4.58 ± 0.54a 1.13 ± 0.51b 1.26 ± 0.24b 2.27 ± 0.14b
56 1.89 ± 0.26a 1.88 ± 0.76a 0.43 ± 0.75a 0.00 ± 0.00b 0.00 ± 0.00b 0.00 ± 0.00b
84 0.00 ± 0.00 0.47 ± 0.40 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00
112 0.23 ± 0.40 0.47 ± 0.40 0.00 - - -
139 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 - - - -
169 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 - - - -

aValues represent log CFU g-1 mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Values without a standard deviation are from samples with a single enrichment. Means (n = 3) with the same letter in each row (a to b) are not significantly different (P > 0.05). Statistical analyses were not performed after day 56 due to samples being below the LOD.

One trial was performed at 15 and 30°C in autoclaved and natural soils for each E. coli O157 strain (metagenomics trial). The mean log CFU g-1 (combined strains) was determined on each sampling day for comparison among soil treatments at each temperature (Table 3). Statistical analysis was not performed based on mean log CFU g-1 in the metagenomics trail. However, similar mean log CFU g-1 were observed between the extinction and metagenomics trials performed at 30°C, and greater survival was observed at 15°C in both soil treatments (Tables 2 and 3). On day 84, the mean log CFU g-1 at 15°C was 4.81 ± 0.18 in autoclaved soils and 2.99 ± 0.74 in natural soils compared to being below the LOD in both experiments at 30°C (Tables 2 and 3). Although similar E. coli O157 concentrations were observed at 15 and 30°C from day 0 to 28 in autoclaved soils, E. coli O157 concentrations declined until extinction (day 140) at 30°C while remaining at 4.50 ± 1.57 log CFU g-1 at 15°C on day 140 (Table 3). Similarly, greater survival was observed in natural soils at 15°C versus 30°C–on day 28, E. coli O157 concentrations were at 4.95 ± 0.54 at 15°C versus 1.29 ± 1.03 at 30°C. On day 56, E. coli O157 concentrations were at 3.52 ± 0.44 at 15°C versus 0.70 ± 0.00 log CFU g-1 at 30°C in natural soils (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of E. coli O157 log CFU g-1 (combined strains) in metagenomics trial.

Day 30°C Soil 15°C Soil
Autoclaveda Naturala Autoclaveda Naturala
0 7.18 ± 0.32 6.58 ± 0.26 7.28 ± 0.25 7.06 ± 0.10
3 7.54 ± 0.28 5.71 ± 0.12 7.17 ± 0.35 7.09 ± 0.51
7 7.64 ± 0.29 5.37 ± 0.29 7.30 ± 0.25 6.24 ± 0.64
14 7.52 ± 0.34 3.98 ± 0.65 7.31 ± 0.17 5.69 ± 0.44
28 6.99 ± 0.11 1.29 ± 1.03 6.91 ± 0.44 4.95 ± 0.54
56 4.34 ± 1.17 0.70 ± 0.00 6.49 ± 0.67 3.52 ± 0.44
84 0.70 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 4.81 ± 0.18 2.99 ± 0.74
112 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 5.20 ± 1.04 1.93 ± 1.15
140 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 4.50 ± 1.57 1.39 ± 0.75

aCombined (mean ± standard deviation) log CFU g-1 for each strain, one trial (n = 3)

E. coli O157 population levels and soil metagenomic analysis

When comparing the bacterial distribution between the two soil treatments, there was a clear distinction between autoclaved and natural soil samples (Fig 1). While autoclaved soil samples consisted primarily of Proteobacteria and Firmicutes at both 15°C and 30°C on days 0, 7, 14, and 28 (Figs 2 and 3), there was a larger variation among autoclaved soil samples for weighted UniFrac distances (P = 0.001) (Fig 1). At 30°C, phyla in addition to Proteobacteria and Firmicutes were identified in autoclaved soil samples on days 7, 14, and 28, which was not observed at 15°C except on day 28 with Actinobacteria (1.4%) and Bacteroidetes (0.1%) (Figs 2 and 3). In autoclaved soils at 30°C, Verrucomicrobia increased from 4.2% on day 14 to 23.0% on day 28 as well as Actinobacteria from 1.4% to 3.9% to 5.0% on days 7, 14, and 28, respectively (Figs 2 and 3).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) plot based on weighted UniFrac distances for autoclaved (red, n = 32) and natural (blue, n = 31) soil (P = 0.001).

Fig 2. The relative abundance of bacterial taxa (phylum) for natural (Nat) and autoclaved (Auto) soil at 15°C, days 0, 7, 14, 28.

Fig 2

Fig 3. The relative abundance of bacterial taxa (phylum) for natural (Nat) and autoclaved (Auto) soil at 30°C, days 0, 7, 14, 28.

Fig 3

While there were minimal changes at the phylum level in autoclaved soils at 15°C consisting primarily of Proteobacteria and Firmicutes, a more in-depth analysis at the class level revealed that within the Proteobacteria phylum, Gammaproteobacteria abundance dominated on day 0 (67%) followed by a lower relative abundance on days 7 (46.6%) 14 (52.0%), and 28 (40.0%) due to the increasing abundance of Betaproteobacteria on days 7 (26.1%), 14 (26.9%), and 28 (28.6%). Gammaproteobacteria abundance also decreased over time in autoclaved soils at 30°C, while Betaproteobacteria abundance remained low at 5.1 to 5.6% abundance over days 7 to 28. Alphaproteobacteria abundance was less than 1% on days 7 and 14, and 3.9% on day 28 in autoclaved soil at 15°C compared to 6.0% (day 7), 7.1% (day 14), and 13.2% (day 28) at 30°C. Similarly, while absent at 15°C, the relative abundance of Clostridia in autoclaved soils at 30°C of 17.7%, 25.2%, and 13.0% was observed on days 7, 14, and 28, respectively (S1 Table).

In comparison to autoclaved soil samples, natural soil samples indicated similar bacteria composition among the samples (Fig 1). While natural soils exhibited fewer differences among samples, many more bacterial taxa were represented in natural soils in comparison to autoclaved soils. Both Chao1 (P = 2.2e-16), reflecting species richness, and Shannon indexes (P = 2.2e-16), reflecting both species richness and evenness, were significantly different among autoclaved and natural soils (Table 4).

Table 4. Chao1 and Shannon diversity indices for autoclaved and natural soils.

Index Treatment P-value
Autoclaveda Naturala
Chao1 1285.96 ± 10.03 8567.55 ± 13.60 2.2e-16
Shannon 4.41 ± 0.05 10.58 ± 0.02 2.2e-16

aValues represent mean ± standard deviation of autoclaved and natural samples

Natural soil samples at both 15°C and 30°C consisted primarily of following phyla: Proteobacteria (20.0–32.0%), Acidobacteria (17.0–24.2%), Actinobacteria (10.5–15.3%), Plantomycetes (8.1–9.0%), and Other (4.8–9.9%) (Figs 2 and 3). In natural soils on day 28, differences in E. coli O157 concentrations between 15°C (4.95 ± 0.54 log CFU g-1) and 30°C (1.29 ± 1.03 log CFU g-1) samples were observed (Table 3), with distinct microbiota structures between soil temperatures based on weighted UniFrac distances (P = 0.001), suggesting microbial community of natural soils might influence E. coli O157 survival in soil (Fig 4).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) plot based on weighted UniFrac distances for 15°C (red) and 30°C (blue) natural soil on day 28 (P = 0.001).

To determine specific bacteria taxa that may contribute to E. coli O157 decline in soils, the taxa that positively correlated with time (P < 0.05) were identified in natural soils at 30°C (Fig 5) due to the greatest decline of E. coli O157 in these soils over time. Of identified bacterial taxa with a significantly positive correlation, only classified taxa with a relative abundance greater than 0.05% on day 28 were included (Fig 5). Acidimicrobiales, Patulibacteraceae, Gaiellaceae, Conexibacteraceae, Pseudonocardia, and Pilimelia were identified within the phylum Actinobacteria. Of these, the greatest relative abundance was Gaiellacae, which increased from 1.75 to 2.26% over 28 days. Acidimicrobiales increased from 0.43 to 0.78% over 28 days. Members of the Verrucomicrobia phylum that positively correlated with time were Pedosphaerales, Verrucomicrobiaceae, Ellin517, and Opitutus.

Fig 5. Bacterial taxa in natural soil at 30°C that positively correlated with time (P < 0.05).

Fig 5

Pearson correlations between relative abundance of bacterial taxa and time (day) were analyzed, and only classified taxa with a relative abundance above 0.05% on day 28 with a significant and positive correlation were included in the heatmap.

Notable bacteria taxa within the Proteobacteria phylum include Deltaproteobacteria, Myxococcales, Bacteriovoracaceae, Pedomicrobium, and Rhodoplanes. Gemmatimonadetes, Ellin6529, Phycisphaerales, Nitrospira, and Saprospiraceae bacterial taxa were also identified to positively correlate with time (P < 0.05) (Fig 5).

Discussion

This study was performed to identify the bacterial taxa that may be responsible for accelerated E. coli O157 reduction in sandy soil. The three E. coli O157 strains evaluated in this study possessed different stx profiles and were isolated from bovine manure on three geographically distinct farms in Florida during a previous study [25]. Although production of Stx has been hypothesized as a means of evading predation and enhancing survival [31], it is also possible that Stx production, especially in the soil environment, could lead to reduced survival based on an increased energy expenditure [14]. Although it has been documented that an stx- E. coli O157 strain survived slightly better than an stx+ E. coli O157 strain at 23°C [32], it is generally accepted that genotype related to STEC virulence factors do not impact survival in soils [8, 33], and similar findings were observed in this study.

With the exception of the micronutrient Mn, similar macro- and micronutrients were observed between the two soil treatments evaluated in this study. The higher level of extractable Mn observed in this study is similar to previous reports of increased soluble Mn concentrations following steam sterilization of soil [34, 35], though it is unclear whether the manganese levels observed in this study influence the survival of E. coli O157 in soils. Autoclaved soils might have resulted in altered organic carbon structures, although delineating physicochemical properties was not a focus of this study.

Minor variations in concentrations of indigenous soil microorganisms were observed over time at 30°C in this study, which is congruent with previous evaluations of consistent indigenous soil microorganisms concentrations in unautoclaved soils via aerobic plate counts over time [13, 23]. Tanaka et al. [36] observed miminal changes in soil microbial cell concentration following steam sterilization in soils. These authors observed an initial soil bacterial population of 7.81 log CFU g-1, and after autoclaving treatment (60°C (soil temperature) for approximately 3 h), soil bacterial populations ranged from 7.13 to 8.39 log CFU g-1 over a 12 day incubation period.

As noted by Kim et al. [18] and exemplified in this research, steam sterilization can be used to alter microbiota populations in compost and soil. Kim et al. [18] autoclaved compost for various lengths of time and temperatures to obtain approximate concentrations of indigenous mesophilic microorganisms within compost for subsequent analysis of E. coli O157 survival. By subjecting compost to 121°C for 20 min (three times on three consecutive days), the authors observed an initital indigenous mesophilic population of approximately 2 log CFU g-1 in the treated compost. They subsequently incubated the treated compost at 22°C for 18, 24, 30, and 48 h, resulting in approximate mesophilic microorganism populations of 5.0, 6.0, 6.5 and 8.0 log CFU g-1 [18]. In this study, similar aerobic plate counts were observed in both autoclaved and natural soils, which is likely a result of the proliferation of a few heat-resistant bacterial taxa due to substrate addition from decomposed microbes and/or reduced competition within the autoclaved soil [36].

While the aerobic plate counts were similar among uninoculated autoclaved and natural soils, E. coli O157 strains survived longer in autoclaved versus natural soils at 30°C. Total extinction (two consecutive negative enrichments for each strain) was observed on day 169 and day 84 for autoclaved and natural soils, respectively, in the extinction trials. In the metagenomics trial, E. coli O157 declined to similar concentrations at each sampling point in comparison to the extinction trial at 30°C. The most drastic decline in E. coli O157 was observed between day 56 and 84 in the metagenomics trial and between day 30 and 56 in the extinction trial at 30°C. Additionally, greater survival was observed at 15 versus 30°C in both soil treatments.

Ibekwe et al. [24] compared the survival of E. coli O157:H7 in silty clay and loamy sand soils that were either autoclaved (1 h, cooled 24 h, repeat autoclaving 1 h) or unautoclaved and subsequently incubated at 20°C. These authors observed approximately less than 3 log CFU g-1 reduction in autoclaved loamy sand in comparison to over a 5 log CFU g-1 reduction in unautoclaved loamy sand over 60 days at 20°C. In silty clay soils, minor differences in E. coli O157:H7 populations were observed in both soil treatments during the first 30 to 40 days of incubation after which greater survival was observed in the autoclaved silty clay [24].

Moynihan et al. [20] incubated sandy loam and clay loam soils (both autoclaved (121°C, 1 h twice over two days) and unautoclaved) initially at 4°C for 6 days and observed minimal changes in non-toxigenic E. coli O157 populations. However, once soils were transferred to an 18°C incubation to mimic warmer temperatures associated with Ireland spring conditions, a steady decrease in unautoclaved soil and slight increase in autoclaved soil of E. coli O157 populations was observed for 64 days of incubation, and these differences were attributed to an increased metabolic activity of the indigenous soil microbial community [20]. Similar conclusions were made by Jiang et al. [17] when observing greater survival of E. coli O157:H7 at 15 and 21°C in manure-amended autoclaved sandy loam soils (121°C for 20 min, three consecutive days) in comparison to manure-amended unautoclaved sandy loam soils when soils were amended with various ratios of manure:soil of 1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100. These authors noted longer survival times in autoclaved soils amended with less manure (1:25, 1:50, 1:100) in comparison to the 1:10 manure:autoclaved soil at both temperatures [17]. While a direct comparison was not made between autoclaved and unautoclaved soils, Vidovic et al. [23] observed better survival of E. coli O157:H7 in autoclaved silty clay loam microcosms in comparison to manure-amended unautoclaved silty clay loam at -21, 4, and 20°C.

van Overbeek et al. [22] implemented denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analysis to evaluate the survival of E. coli O157 in 36 soils (sand and loam) amended with manure at 16°C. Significant differences in irregularity were observed between two clusters based on Pearson correlations of 16S rRNA fingerprints as well as a positive correlation between irregularity and diversity for a subset of soil. It was suggested that an increase in diversity may contribute to irregularity, which is defined as how well a population decline follows a specific pattern (i.e., a high irregularity results in a lower accuracy of predicting population behavior) [22]. However, it should be noted that the time to reach the detection limit was not significantly different between these soils [22].

The diversity of bacterial populations in natural soil samples was much higher when compared among autoclaved soil samples based on the number of OTUs during sequencing for each sample. This was as expected as thermally-susceptible bacterial taxa were expected to be removed during autoclaving, but remained unaffected for the unautoclaved natural soil samples. While there was a greater diversity of taxa in natural soil samples, differences in the relative abundance of bacteria over time and temperature were lower in comparison to autoclaved soils. The larger diversity among autoclaved soil samples during the later stage of the experiment was likely due to the regrowth of bacterial taxa over time, especially at 30°C. Future research should focus on extending the regrowth period (more than 48 h) after autoclaving soil prior to inoculation, which may allow the bacterial population to reach equilibrium in the soil. Additionally, shifts in the microbial diversity from soil mixing during sampling may occur and warrants further investigation.

Soil bacterial diversity in other regions and soil types can vary–sand and loam soils (n = 36) in the Netherlands clustered into three groups based on microbial diversity, with Shannon diversity indices ranging from 3.35 to 3.78 [22], while clay soils in France have exhibited a Shannon diversity of 8.57 [37]. A higher bacterial diversity was observed in the Florida sandy soil examined in this study, although these comparisons should be carefully considered based on different sequencing approaches [38]. Ma et al. [19] did not observe an influence of bacterial diversity on E. coli O157 survival times across 32 soils with a wide range of soil texture properties from California and Arizona, and Shannon diversity indices ranges from 6.04 to 7.29. However, correlations between higher survival in the presence of Actinobacteria and Acidobacteria and suppression of survival in the presence of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes were noted [19]. In this study, nearly half (14/31) of the bacterial taxa that positively correlated with time (P < 0.05) in natural soils at 30°C were in the Proteobacteria phylum, which suggests that bacteria in the Proteobacteria phylum may suppress E. coli O157 survival in soil similar to previous work [19]. Among the Proteobacteria that positively correlated with time in natural soil at 30°C, Myxococcales and Bacteriovoracaceae have been associated with antagonistic activity against E. coli. Myxococcales include Myxococcus xanthus, which produce bioactive secondary metabolites and have been associated with predation of bacteria [39, 40]. Likewise, the family of Bacteriovoraceae include Bdellovibrio which are well characterized predators [41], and lysis of E. coli and other Gram-negative bacterial cells has been demonstrated [42, 43]. Rhodoplanes also increased in relative abundance over 28 days, which has previously been observed following the addition of a derivative E. coli O157 strain to two sandy soils [44].

Several taxa in Actinobacteria phylum positively correlated with time, with the greatest relative abundance of Gaiellaceae. The Gaiellaceae family is comprised of single Gram-negative species Gaiella occulta which was first isolated from a deep mineral water aquifer [45], and while further characterization of this organism progresses [46], knowledge of potential antimicrobial capabilities is limited. Pseudonocardia has been associated with antimicrobial properties, with a particular strain producing a carbohydrate-based compound effective against Staphylococcus aureus that withstands autoclaving and boiling treatment [47]. While there were low relative abundances of Verrucomicrobiaceae, primer bias may have led to a misrepresentation of the relative abundance, and these taxa may play an important role in soil microbial communities [48].

Temperature is an important abiotic factor that has shown to influence the death rates of pathogens in soil, with higher temperatures leading to more rapid die-off [1113]. While higher temperatures may lead to a higher metabolic activity of E. coli O157 and more rapid utilization of nutrients and in the environment, similar effects could occur with indigenous soil microorganisms based on temperature [17, 23]. In natural soils, E. coli O157 decreased over 5 log CFU g-1 by day 30 at 30°C, which could be due the higher bacteria taxa and/or an increased metabolic function as previously stated. In the current experiments, similar E. coli O157 concentrations were observed in autoclaved soils at both temperatures, which was not observed in natural soils. This data supports that temperature influences microbial activity and subsequent E. coli O157 survival, and may be accelerated in more diverse soils. Metagenomic data in this study shows that bacterial diversity increases over time in autoclaved soils, which may explain the increased decline in E. coli O157 at 30°C from day 56 to 84 at 30°C. While though no significant differences were found in the survival of the three strains at 30°C, a different strain-dependent impact of the lower temperature and/or on the detected taxa cannot be excluded and warrants further study.

Overall, this study provides an evaluation of representative bacterial populations in autoclaved and natural sandy soil at two temperatures, and their effect on E. coli O157 survival. Future experiments are needed to evaluate the impact of specific bacterial taxa on E. coli O157 survival in soils. It should be noted that other indigenous microbiota such as soil protists, fungi, and nematodes were likely removed while autoclaving soils, which could also influence pathogen survival. Additionally, farming practices that reduce soil bacterial diversity and any associated risks should be considered [15, 37]. This data, along with metagenomic analyses of soil from other geographic regions, will be useful in determining the role of natural soil microbiome on the fate of E. coli O157 in soils.

Supporting information

S1 Table

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Chris R. Pabst and Bruna Bertoldi for technical assistance.

Data Availability

The datasets “Microbiota of autoclaved and natural sandy soil mesocosms” Accession: PRJNA589186 for this study can be found in NBCI Trace Archive NCBI Sequence Read Archive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA589186.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006. Multistate outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections linked to fresh spinach (FINAL UPDATE). 6 October 2006. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2006/spinach-10-2006.html. Cited 7 January 2020.
  • 2.Jay MT, Cooley MB, Carychao D, Wiscomb GW, Sweitzer RA, Crawford-Miksza L, et al. 2007. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feral swine near spinach fields and cattle, central California coast. Emerg Infect Dis. 13(12):1908–1911. 10.3201/eid1312.070763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2015. Standards for the growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce for human consumption. Available from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/11/27/2015-28159/standards-for-the-growing-harvesting-packing-and-holdingof-produce-for-human-consumption. Cited 24 October 2019.
  • 4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. Multistate outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections linked to Romaine lettuce (Final Update). 28 June 2018. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-04-18/index.html. Cited 22 January 2020.
  • 5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019a. Outbreak of E. coli Infections Linked to Romaine Lettuce (Final Update). 9 Jan 2019. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-11-18/index.html. Cited 22 January 2020.
  • 6.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019b. Outbreak of E. coli Infections Linked to Romaine Lettuce (Final Update). 15 Jan 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-04-18/index.html. Cited 22 January 2020.
  • 7.US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018b. Standards for the growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce for human consumption. 21 CFR part 112. Fed. Regist. 1 April 2018 Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=112&showFR=1. Cited 24 October 2019.
  • 8.Franz E, van Hoek AHAM, Bouw E, Aarts HJM. 2011. Variability of Escherichia coli O157 strain survival in manure-amended soil in relation to strain origin, virulence profile, and carbon nutrition profile. Appl Environ Microbiol. 77(22):8088–8096. 10.1128/AEM.00745-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sharma M, Reynnells R. 2016. Importance of soil amendments: survival of bacterial pathogens in manure and compost used as organic fertilizers. Microbiol Spectrum 4(4):PFS-0010-2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.van Elsas JD, Hill P, Chronáková A, Grekova M, Topalova Y, Elhottová D, et al. 2007. Survival of genetically marked Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soil as affected by soil microbial community shifts. ISME J. 1:204–214. 10.1038/ismej.2007.21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Cools D, Merckx R, Vlassak K, Verhaegen J. 2001. Survival of E. coli and Enterococcus spp. derived from pig slurry in soils of different texture. Appl Soil Ecol. 17(1):53–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Semenov AV, van Bruggen AHC, van Overbeek L, Termorshuizen AJ, Semenov AM. 2007. Influence of temperature fluctuations on Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in cow manure. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 60:419–428. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2007.00306.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Underthun K, De J, Gutierrez A, Silverberg R, Schneider KR. 2018. Survival of Salmonella and Escherichia coli in two different soil types at various moisture levels and temperatures. J. Food Protect. 82(1):150–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Van Elsas JD, Semenov AV, Costa R, Trevors JT. 2011. Survival of Escherichia coli in the environment: fundamental and public health aspects. ISME J. 5:173–183. 10.1038/ismej.2010.80 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.van Elsas JD, Chiurazzi M, Mallon CA, Elhottova D, Krištufek V, Salles JF. 2012. Microbial diversity determines the invasion of soil by a bacterial pathogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(4):1159–1164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ibekwe AM, Ma J. 2011b. Effects of fumigants on microbial diversity and persistence of E. coli O15:H7 (sic) in contrasting soil microcosms. Sci Total Environ. 409:3740–3748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jiang X, Morgan J, Doyle MP. 2002. Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in manure amended soil. Appl Environ Microbiol. 68:2605–2609. 10.1128/aem.68.5.2605-2609.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kim J, Miller CM, Shepherd MW Jr., Liu X, Jiang X. 2011. Impact of indigenous microorganisms on Escherichia coli O157:H7 growth in cured compost. Bioresource Technol. 102:9619–9625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ma J, Ibekwe AM, Yang CH, Crowley DE. 2013. Influence of bacterial communities based on 454- pyrosequencing on the survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soils. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 84:542–554. 10.1111/1574-6941.12083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Moynihan EL, Richards KG, Ritz K, Tyrrel S, Brennan FP. 2013. Impact of soil type, biology and temperature on the survival of non-toxigenic Escherichia coli O157. Biology and Environment: Proceedings Royal Irish Acad. 113B.
  • 21.Moynihan EL, Richards KG, Brennan FP, Tyrrel S, Ritz K. 2015. Enteropathogen survival in soil from different land-uses is predominantly regulated by microbial community composition. Appl Soil Ecol. 89:76–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.van Overbeek LS, Franz E, Semenov AV, de Vos OJ, van Bruggen AHC. 2010. The effect of the native bacterial community structure on the predictability of E. coli O157:H7 survival in manure amended soil. Let Appl Microbiol. 50:425–430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Vidovic S, Block HC, Korber DR. 2007. Effect of soil composition, temperature, indigenous microflora, and environmental conditions on the survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7. Can J Microbiol. 53:822–829. 10.1139/W07-041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ibekwe AM, Papiernik SK, Grieve CM, Yang C-H. 2011a. Quantification of persistence of Escherichia coli in contrasting soils. Int J Microbiol. 421379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wolf DC, Skipper HD. 1994. Chapter 3: Soil Sterilization. In: Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2: Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, pp. 41–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bouyoucos GJ. 1936. Directions for making mechanical analysis of soils by the hydrometer method. Soil Sci. 42(3):225–230. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Baker CA, De Jaysankar, Bertoldi B, Dunn L, Chapin T, Jay-Russell M, et al. 2019. Prevalence and concentration of stx+ E. coli and E. coli O157 in bovine manure from Florida farms. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0217445 10.1371/journal.pone.0217445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD. 2013. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curatrion pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina Sequencing Platform. Appl Environ Microbiol. 79(17):5112–5120. 10.1128/AEM.01043-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. 2010. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community serquencing data. Nat Methods 7(5):335–336. 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hill TC, Walsh KA, Harris JA, Moffett BF. 2003. Using ecological diversity measures with bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 43:1–11. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2003.tb01040.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mauro SA, Koudelka GB. 2011. Shiga toxin: Expression, distribution, and its role in the environment. Toxins 3:608–625. 10.3390/toxins3060608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kudva IT, Blanch K, Hovde CJ. 1998. Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival in ovine or bovine manure and manure slurry. Appl Environ Microbiol. 64:3166–3174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ma J, Ibekwe AM, Yi X, Wang H, Yamazaki A, Crowley DE, et al. 2011. Persistence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and its mutants. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23191 10.1371/journal.pone.0023191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Salonius PO, Robinson JB, Chase FE. 1967. A comparison of autoclaved and gamma-irradiated soils as media for microbial colonization experiments. Plant Soil 27(2):239–248. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Williams-Linera G, Ewel JJ. 1984. Effect of autoclave sterilization of a tropical andept on seed germination and seedling growth. Plant and Soil 82:263–268. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tanaka S, Kobayashi T, Iwasaki K, Yamane S, Maeda K, Sakurai K. 2003. Properties and metabolic diversity of microbial communities in soils treated with steam sterilization compared with methyl bromide and chloropicrin fumigations. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 49(4):603–610. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Vivant A-L, Garmyn D, Maron P-A, Nowak V, Piveteau P. 2013. Microbial diversity and structure are drivers of the biological barrier effect against Listeria monocytogenes in soil. PLoS ONE 8(10):e76991 10.1371/journal.pone.0076991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lemos LN, Fulthorpe RR, Triplett EW, Roesch LFW. 2011. Rethinking microbial diversity analysis in the high throughput sequencing era. J Microbiol Methods 86:42–51. 10.1016/j.mimet.2011.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dawid W. 2002. Biology and global distribution of myxobacteria in soils. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 24:403–427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Xiao Y, Wei X, Ebright R, Wall D. 2011. Antibiotic production by Myxobacteria plays a role in predation. J Bacteriol. 193(18):4626–4633. 10.1128/JB.05052-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sockett RE. 2009. Predatory lifestyle of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus. Annu Rev Microbiol. 63:523–539. 10.1146/annurev.micro.091208.073346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Fratamico PM, Cooke PH. 1996. Isolation of Bdellovibrios that prey on Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella species and application for removal of prey from stainless steel surfaces. J Food Saf. 16:161–173. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fratamico PM, Whiting RC. 1995. Ability of Bdelllovibrio bacteriovorus 109J to lyse gram-negative food-borne pathogenic and spoilage bacteria. J Food Prot. 58(2):160–164. 10.4315/0362-028X-58.2.160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mallon CA, Roux XL, van Doorn GS, D-A F, Poly F, Salles JF. 2018. The impact of failure: unsuccessful bacterial invasions steer the soil microbial community away from the invader’s niche. The ISME J. 12:728–741. 10.1038/s41396-017-0003-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Albuquerque L, França L, Rainey FA, Schumann P, Nobre MF, da Costa MS 2011. Gaiella occulta gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel representative of a deep branching phylogenetic lineage within the class Actinobacteria and proposal of Gaiellaceae fam. nov. and Gaiellales ord. nov. Syst Appl Microbiol. 34(8):595–599. 10.1016/j.syapm.2011.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Severino R, Froufe HJC, Barroso C, Albuquerque L, Lobo-da-Cunha A, da Costa MS, E C. 2019. High‐quality draft genome sequence of Gaiella occulta isolated from a 150 meter deep mineral water borehole and comparison with the genome sequences of other deep‐branching lineages of the phylum Actinobacteria. Microbiol Open 8:e840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jafari N, Behroozi R, Farajzadeh D, Farsi M, Akbari-Noghabi K. 2014. Antibacterial activity of Pseudonocardia sp. JB05, a rare salty soil actinomycete against Staphylococcus aureus. Biomed Res Int. 182945 10.1155/2014/182945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bergmann GT, Bates ST, Eilers KG, Lauber CL, Caporaso JG, Walters WA, et al. 2012. The under-recognized dominance of Verrucomicrobia in soil bacterial communities. Soil Biol Biochem. 43(7):1450–1455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luigimaria Borruso

13 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-03610

Survival of Escherichia coli O157 in Autoclaved and Natural Sandy Soil Mesocosms

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  Keith R. Schneider,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 30-05-2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luigimaria Borruso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the manuscript titled: “Survival of Escherichia coli O157 in Autoclaved and Natural Sandy Soil Mesocosms”, the authors observe and compare survival dynamics of three strains (stx types) of E. coli O157 in native and autoclaved sandy soils. Further experiments were performed to compare survival at two temperatures (15°C and 30°C) and to investigate the microbial diversity within the soil samples over time using a high-throughput 16S sequencing approach. Ultimately, they observe that E. coli O157 survives better in a less diverse environment (autoclaved soil) and at cooler temperatures, likely due to reduced competition.

The article presents a valuable and detailed description of the soil-borne bacteria detected and supporting evidence for how these populations may influence the survival of E. coli O157 in native soils. The findings augment current knowledge on the topic of E. coli survival in soils, and provide a list of bacterial taxa that warrant further investigation. The article is well written and supported in the literature with references to 47 sources.

Major Points:

1. While there is a great discussion on the specific taxa that were observed in this study on sandy soil, there is little discussion on the overall microbial diversity. Is it know if the microbial composition observed is similar or varies from what has been seen in other soil types, geographies, agriculture or other samples?

Minor Points:

• Introduction – the current research is introduced in the context of produce safety but there is no discussion of the choice to focus on sandy soil. Is this a soil composition that is typical for agriculture in Florida, or for romaine lettuce, or simply what the authors had access to?

• Methods Section – suggest to reorder the methods with soil preparation first then bacterial strains and inoculum preparation, for simplicity for the reader.

• Lines 281-293 – referencing data presented in Supplemental Table? If so please add reference to that.

• Lines 320-322 – Suggest to break this sentence and slightly reconstructing it for simplicity: “… were identified. Of these, the greatest relative abundance was Gailellacae, which increased…. “

• Lines 355-357 – It has long been known that high levels of manganese can be toxic to E. coli (Silver S et al. 1972, Hantke K 1987), please compare the concentrations observed in the autoclaved soil (31.2 mg/kg) to previously described inhibitory concentrations of Mn.

• Line 415 –write out DGGE abbreviation

• Table 2

o Please add “(n = 3)” behind “mean” in c footnote

o Footnotes c and d should come first and do not require a letter, otherwise the letter should be somewhere appropriately located in the table itself.

• Tables 1, 3 and 4 – Similarly for the footnotes about explaining the values, either place a corresponding letter next to “autoclaved” and “natural” or omit the letter).

• Figures – are generally low quality and resolution should be improved.

o Text in figures 1 & 4 should be increased and spaced away from overlapping with axes

o Figure 2 & 3, suggest to use bars to span all natural and autoclaved samples, so that sample names can be simplified to days (temp is not needed for each sample name). I would also suggest to format the legend to classify based on kingdom, so that only phylum needs to be displayed for each entry, this would simplify interpretation for the reader.

o Figure 5 – suggest to add a heading above the phylum legend and remove the p_ in the naming.

• Supplemental File 1 (Table) –

o please include a note for interpretation of the sample ID code. Which I assume is autoclaved or natural – time point (days) – incubation temp – unknown number

o numeric values represent the proportion of the total population (1.0) with a given taxonomy by 16S sequencing analysis. – this should be noted somewhere.

Reviewer #2: The work of Baker et al., aims to determine the survival of three strains of E. coli O157 with different stx types in autoclaved and natural sandy soil at 30°C. A metagenomic analysis in autoclaved and natural soil at 15 and 30ºC was also performed, providing information on the bacterial taxa that may contribute to E. coli O157 survival in sandy soil.

In general, the work is well-written, the topic is interesting and it open stimulating perspectives to evaluate the impact of specific bacterial taxa on E. coli O157 survival in soils.

However, in my opinion, some methodological issues should be clarified better.

The authors should clearly explain the reason why they investigated E. coli survival and soil taxa just at 15°C in the metagenomic trial. Moreover, I don’t well understand if the metagenomic analysis have been performed in one sample co-inoculated with the three E. coli strains, or in three samples each inoculated with one E. coli strain. This information must be clearly provided in materials and methods. Anyway, though no significant differences were found in the survival of the three strains at 30°C, a different strain-dependent impact of the lower temperature and of (or on) the detected taxa cannot be excluded. Moreover, statistical analyses were not performed for the trial conducted at 15 and 30ºC in autoclaved and natural soils for metagenomic analysis, thus reducing the robustness of the results. The authors are invited to clarify these points.

Minor revisions

L.30. different

L93. Please, use a code to provide an identification at a strain level of the E. coli used in this work.

L133-135. Provide more details about the analysis of organic compounds, macro- and micronutrients

L142. 169 or 160?

L147. Why the background microbiota in soils was carried out on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 30, 56, and 84, and not only until 160 days as for E. coli determination?

L165. mesocosm

L240-243. Please, rephrase the sentence

L251-253. This information is provided in a confusing way

L253-256. A similar difference (about 3-Log) is detectable at day 28

L346-348. If no significant differences were found in the survival, the sentence is a no-sense

L385-387. Rephrase the sentence in a more clear way

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 11;15(6):e0234562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234562.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Apr 2020

Reviewer #1:

Major Points:

While there is a great discussion on the specific taxa that were observed in this study on sandy soil, there is little discussion on the overall microbial diversity.

Is it know if the microbial composition observed is similar or varies from what has been seen in other soil types, geographies, agriculture or other samples?

Response: As recommended by Reviewer 1, we have added a discussion on potential differences in bacterial diversity between regions and soil types:

Before: Additionally, shifts in the microbial diversity from soil mixing during sampling may occur and warrants further investigation.

Ma et al. [19] did not observe an influence of bacterial diversity on E. coli O157 survival times across 32 soils from California and Arizona. However, correlations between higher survival in the presence of Actinobacteria and Acidobacteria and suppression of survival in the presence of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes were noted (19).

After:

Additionally, shifts in the microbial diversity from soil mixing during sampling may occur and warrants further investigation.

Soil bacterial diversity in other regions and soil types can vary – sand and loam soils (n = 36) in the Netherlands clustered into three groups based on microbial diversity, with Shannon diversity indices ranging from 3.35 to 3.78 (22), while clay soils in France have exhibited a Shannon diversity of 8.57 (37). A higher bacterial diversity was observed in the Florida sandy soil examined in this study, although these comparisons should be carefully considered based on different sequencing approaches (38). Ma et al. [19] did not observe an influence of bacterial diversity on E. coli O157 survival times across 32 soils with a wide range of soil texture properties from California and Arizona, and Shannon diversity indices ranges from 6.04 to 7.29. However, correlations between higher survival in the presence of Actinobacteria and Acidobacteria and suppression of survival in the presence of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes were noted (19).

Minor Points:

Introduction – the current research is introduced in the context of produce safety but there is no discussion of the choice to focus on sandy soil. Is this a soil composition that is typical for agriculture in Florida, or for romaine lettuce, or simply what the authors had access to?

Although mentioned in the methods section, we have added a clearer explanation for the soil used in this study in the first sentence of the last paragraph in the introduction:

“This study was performed to further elucidate E. coli O157 survival in soil commonly used for agriculture in Florida, with an altered bacterial taxa profile following heat treatment.”

Methods Section – suggest to reorder the methods with soil preparation first then bacterial strains and inoculum preparation, for simplicity for the reader.

Response: As suggested by Reviewer 1, the soil preparation methods section has been moved to the front of the Methods section to prevent confusion in the Bacterial strain and inoculation preparation section.

Referencing data presented in Supplemental Table? If so please add reference to that.

Response: Yes. As suggested by Reviewer 1, we have added “(Supplemental Table 1)” to the end of this text.

Suggest to break this sentence and slightly reconstructing it for simplicity: “… were identified. Of these, the greatest relative abundance was Gailellacae, which increased…. “

Response: This sentence was split and reconstructed as suggested by Reviewer 1.

Before: “Within the phylum Actinobacteria, Acidimicrobiales, Patulibacteraceae, Gaiellaceae, Conexibacteraceae, Pseudonocardia, and Pilimelia were identified, with the greatest relative abundance of Gaiellacae increasing from 1.75 to 2.26% over 28 days. Acidimicrobiales increased from 0.43 to 0.78% over 28 days.”

After: Acidimicrobiales, Patulibacteraceae, Gaiellaceae, Conexibacteraceae, Pseudonocardia, and Pilimelia were identified within the phylum Actinobacteria. Of these, the greatest relative abundance was Gaiellacae, which increased from 1.75 to 2.26% over 28 days.

It has long been known that high levels of manganese can be toxic to E. coli (Silver S et al. 1972, Hantke K 1987), please compare the concentrations observed in the autoclaved soil (31.2 mg/kg) to previously described inhibitory concentrations of Mn.

Response: Based on Silver et al. (1972), we have calculated an inhibitory concentration of 549 mg/L in broth culture at 37ºC. Based on the value observed in soils in this study, we do not think it is necessary to include this data or discussion point as it may lead to confusion to the reader.

Write out DGGE abbreviation

Response: We have spelled out DGGE as suggested by Reviewer 1.

Table 2

Please add “(n = 3)” behind “mean” in c footnote

Response: This has been added as suggested by Reviewer 1.

Footnotes c and d should come first and do not require a letter, otherwise the letter should be somewhere appropriately located in the table itself.

Response: Footnotes b, c and d have been moved within footnote as suggested by Reviewer 1.

Tables 1, 3 and 4 – Similarly for the footnotes about explaining the values, either place a corresponding letter next to “autoclaved” and “natural” or omit the letter).

Response: For tables 1, 3, and 4, superscripts for footnote a have been added

Figures – are generally low quality and resolution should be improved.

Text in figures 1 & 4 should be increased and spaced away from overlapping with axes

Response: As suggested by Reviewer 1, the text in figures 1 and 4 has been increased and spaced away from axes. Unfortunately, resolution cannot be increased for figures 1 and 4 since they were generated with online software QIIME. We have improved the resolution of Figures 2-5 the best we can a minimum dpi of 300 as required by PLoS ONE.

Figure 2 & 3, suggest to use bars to span all natural and autoclaved samples, so that sample names can be simplified to days (temp is not needed for each sample name). I would also suggest to format the legend to classify based on kingdom, so that only phylum needs to be displayed for each entry, this would simplify interpretation for the reader.

Response: Figures 2 & 3 have been updated to remove temp, and spanning natural and autoclave sample labels, along with removing the kingdom classification.

Figure 5 – suggest to add a heading above the phylum legend and remove the p_ in the naming.

Response: A heading has been added and the p_ has been removed in Figure 5 as suggested by Reviewer 1.

Supplemental File 1 (Table) –

Please include a note for interpretation of the sample ID code. Which I assume is autoclaved or natural – time point (days) – incubation temp – unknown number

Numeric values represent the proportion of the total population (1.0) with a given taxonomy by 16S sequencing analysis. – this should be noted somewhere.

Response: As suggested by Reviewer 1, an explanation of Sample ID codes and relative abundance of total population has been added to Supplemental file 1 (see below):

Sample ID code:

“Treatment_Day_Temperature_Strain;

"Auto_0_30_1" = Autoclaved_Day0_30ºC_Strain 1

Strain ID: 1 = 6DL-17; 5 = 5DOE-2; 9 = 9OLM-10; NC = no E. coli O157 added

Numeric values represent proportion of the total population (1.0) with a given taxonomy by 16S sequencing analysis”

Reviewer #2: The work of Baker et al., aims to determine the survival of three strains of E. coli O157 with different stx types in autoclaved and natural sandy soil at 30°C. A metagenomic analysis in autoclaved and natural soil at 15 and 30ºC was also performed, providing information on the bacterial taxa that may contribute to E. coli O157 survival in sandy soil. In general, the work is well-written, the topic is interesting and it open stimulating perspectives to evaluate the impact of specific bacterial taxa on E. coli O157 survival in soils.

However, in my opinion, some methodological issues should be clarified better.

The authors should clearly explain the reason why they investigated E. coli survival and soil taxa just at 15°C in the metagenomic trial.

Response: We are unsure of the misunderstanding that metagenomic analysis was only performed at 15ºC. Analysis was performed at both temperatures (15ºC and 30ºC) as stated in the text: “A metagenomic analysis in autoclaved and natural soil at 15 and 30ºC was also performed, providing information on the bacterial taxa that may contribute to E. coli O157 survival in sandy soil."

Moreover, I don’t well understand if the metagenomic analysis have been performed in one sample co-inoculated with the three E. coli strains, or in three samples each inoculated with one E. coli strain. This information must be clearly provided in materials and methods.

Response: We have updated the text in the Methods section to make it clearer on how soils were inoculated for the extinction trials and metagenomic trail.

“The survival of E. coli O157 strains in autoclaved and natural soil was evaluated in triplicate for each strain and soil type at 30ºC (one strain per mesocosm, performed in triplicate for each soil treatment).”

Updated section explaining the metagenomics trail:

“Each strain (6DL-17, 5DOE-2, 9OLM-10) was separately inoculated into soil mesocosms for each soil treatment and incubation temperature (one trial).”

Anyway, though no significant differences were found in the survival of the three strains at 30°C, a different strain-dependent impact of the lower temperature and of (or on) the detected taxa cannot be excluded.

Response: A statement to this point has been added to the discussion section.

Moreover, statistical analyses were not performed for the trial conducted at 15 and 30ºC in autoclaved and natural soils for metagenomic analysis, thus reducing the robustness of the results. The authors are invited to clarify these points.

Response: While statistical analysis were not performed in the single metagenomics trials, we do mention that similar E. coli O157 levels are present at 30ºC (in the metagenomics trial) for both soil treatments when comparing it to the triplicate extinction trial at 30ºC:

“Statistical analysis was not performed based on mean log CFU g-1 in the metagenomics trail. However, similar mean log CFU g-1 were observed between the extinction and metagenomics trials performed at 30ºC, and greater survival was observed at 15ºC in both soil treatments (Tables 2, 3).”

We agree that triplicate trials would improve the data, but the metagenomics trial was performed to assess bacterial taxa in each treatment and temperature over 28 days, not necessarily to determine E. coli O157 populations based on temperature.

Minor revisions

L.30. different

Response: The word “deferent” has been changed to “different”.

L93. Please, use a code to provide an identification at a strain level of the E. coli used in this work.

Response: Codes corresponding with previous research for each strain have been added.

L133-135. Provide more details about the analysis of organic compounds, macro- and micronutrients

Response: Details on each analysis for organic matter and macro-/micronutrients has been added as suggested by Reviewer 2 (see below).

“A subsample of autoclaved and natural soil was analyzed for organic matter content (Walkley-Black titration), pH, macro- and micronutrients (Mehlich-3 extraction and analysis via inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES)) at the UF IFAS Extension Soil Laboratory (Gainesville, FL).”

L142. 169 or 160?

Response: 169. This has been corrected throughout the text.

L147. Why the background microbiota in soils was carried out on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 30, 56, and 84, and not only until 160 days as for E. coli determination?

Response: Background microbiota concentrations remained constant during the first 84 days, and once E. coli O157 populations were unrecoverable in natural soils (day 84), sampling was not performed.

L165. Mesocosm

Response: We have corrected the misspelling of “mescosm” to “mesocosm”

L240-243. Please, rephrase the sentence

Response: We have rephrased this sentence as suggested by Reviewer 2 along with the subsequent and related sentences for clarity.

Before: “Statistical analyses were not performed for the trial conducted at 15 and 30ºC in autoclaved and natural soils for metagenomic analysis – mesocosms were inoculated with separate E. coli O157 strains resulting in a lack of independent triplicate mesocosms for analysis. However, the mean log CFU g-1 (combined strains) was determined on each sampling day for comparison among soil treatments at each temperature (Table 3). Similar mean log CFU g-1 were observed between the trials performed at 30ºC, and greater survival was observed at 15ºC in both soil treatments (Tables 2, 3). On day 84, the mean log CFU g-1 at 15ºC was 4.81 ± 0.18 in autoclaved soils and 2.99 ± 0.74 in natural soils compared to being below the LOD in both experiments at 30ºC (Table 2, 3).”

After: “One trial was performed at 15 and 30ºC in autoclaved and natural soils for each E. coli O157 strain (metagenomics trial). The mean log CFU g-1 (combined strains) was determined on each sampling day for comparison among soil treatments at each temperature (Table 3). Statistical analysis was not performed based on mean log CFU g-1 in the metagenomics trail. However, similar mean log CFU g-1 were observed between the extinction and metagenomics trials performed at 30ºC, and greater survival was observed at 15ºC in both soil treatments (Tables 2, 3).”

L251-253. This information is provided in a confusing way

Response: We have updated this section as suggested by Reviewer 2 (see before and after below).

Before: “Although similar E. coli O157 concentrations were observed at 15 and 30ºC on day 28 in autoclaved soils at 6.91 ± 0.44 log CFU g-1 and 6.99 ± 0.11 log CFU g-1, respectively (Table 3), a greater than 5 log CFU g-1 decline in E. coli O157 was observed after 28 days at 30ºC while remaining at 4.50 ± 1.57 log CFU g-1 at 15ºC on day 140 (last sampling day).”

After: “Although similar E. coli O157 concentrations were observed at 15 and 30ºC from day 0 to 28 in autoclaved soils, E. coli O157 concentrations declined until extinction (day 140) at 30ºC while remaining at 4.50 ± 1.57 log CFU g-1 at 15ºC on day 140 (Table 3).”

L253-256. A similar difference (about 3-Log) is detectable at day 28

Response: We have added the values in natural soil on day 28 in addition to day 56 as suggested by Reviewer 2 (see below):

“ Similarly, greater survival was observed in natural soils at 15ºC versus 30ºC – on day 28, E. coli O157 concentrations were at 4.95 ± 0.54 at 15ºC versus 1.29 ± 1.03 at 30ºC. On day 56, E. coli O157 concentrations were at 3.52 ± 0.44 at 15ºC versus 0.70 ± 0.00 log CFU g-1 at 30ºC in natural soils (Table 3).”

L346-348. If no significant differences were found in the survival, the sentence is a no-sense

Response: As suggested by Reviewer 2, we have removed this sentence: “The stx1-/stx2- E. coli O157 strain used in this study survived longer in both autoclaved and natural soils in comparison to the stx1+/stx2+ and stx1-/stx2+ strains, although these differences in survival were not significant.”

However, we did add that “similar findings were observed in this study” when discussing virulence not impacting survival (next sentence)

L385-387. Rephrase the sentence in a more clear way

Response: We have rephrased this sentence as suggested by Reviewer 2.

Before: “Similar results were observed in the metagenomics trial, except the most drastic decline was observed between day 56 and 84 in the metagenomics trial versus day 30 and 56 in the extinction trials at 30ºC.”

After: “In the metagenomics trial, E. coli O157 declined to similar concentrations at each sampling point in comparison to the extinction trial at 30ºC. The most drastic decline in E. coli O157 was observed between day 56 and 84 in the metagenomics trial and between day 30 and 56 in the extinction trial at 30ºC.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-20-03610.docx

Decision Letter 1

Luigimaria Borruso

29 May 2020

Survival of Escherichia coli O157 in Autoclaved and Natural Sandy Soil Mesocosms

PONE-D-20-03610R1

Dear Dr. Keith R. Schneider,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Luigimaria Borruso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been modified according to the suggestions of the reviewers, and it is now suitable for pubblication in PlosOne

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Luigimaria Borruso

2 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-03610R1

Survival of Escherichia coli O157 in Autoclaved and Natural Sandy Soil Mesocosms

Dear Dr. Schneider:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luigimaria Borruso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-20-03610.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The datasets “Microbiota of autoclaved and natural sandy soil mesocosms” Accession: PRJNA589186 for this study can be found in NBCI Trace Archive NCBI Sequence Read Archive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA589186.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES