Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2022 Feb 17;11(2):e01064-21. doi: 10.1128/mra.01064-21

Genome-Annotated Bacterial Collection of the Barley Rhizosphere Microbiota

Senga Robertson-Albertyn a, James C Abbott b, Federico Concas a,*, Lynn H Brown a, Jamie N Orr c, Timothy S George d, Davide Bulgarelli a,
Editor: Irene L G Newtone
PMCID: PMC8852276  PMID: 35175125

ABSTRACT

A culture collection of 41 bacteria isolated from the rhizosphere of cultivated barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. vulgare) is available at the Division of Plant Sciences, University of Dundee (UK). The data include information on genes putatively implicated in nitrogen fixation, HCN channels, phosphate solubilization, and linked whole-genome sequences.

ANNOUNCEMENT

The microbial communities thriving at the root-soil interface, that is, the rhizosphere microbiota, represent an untapped resource of plant probiotic functions (1, 2). Bacterial members of the microbiota capable of enhancing a plant’s mineral uptake from soil and pathogen protection, namely, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs), have gained prominence in both basic scientific and translational applications (35). As a resource for comparative investigations of the plant microbiota across host species, we present a collection of 41 bacterial strains encompassing 15 genera with the presence of at least 5 putative plant growth-promoting (PGP)-associated gene orthologs, including, dinG, hcn, nif, pho, and pqq (Table 1) (6).

TABLE 1.

Taxonomic affiliation, genomic characteristics, and accession numbers of genomes of 41 individual bacterial isolatesa described in this study

Isolate Bacterial speciesb Genome size (bp) No. of contigs N50 (bp) PGPR operon gene(s) identified
GC content (%) ENA accession no.
pqq dinG c pho nif hcn
Bi02 Plantibacter cousiniae 3,994,224 78 112,363 C,H,R,U 69.52 ERS5639569
Bi03 Microbacterium foliorum 3,548,807 95 63,748 C,D + D,H,R,U 67.79 ERS5639570
Bi04 Chryseobacterium sp. 5,066,124 34 280,276 A,D,H,R A,U 36.22 ERS5639571
Bi05 Agrobacterium fabrum 5,161,912 21 417,533 E,H,T,R,U A,S,U 59.17 ERS5639572
Bi06 Pseudomonas brassicacearum 6,570,464 168 68,008 B,C,D,E,F,H + D,H,R,U A A,B,C 60.84 ERS5639573
Bi08 Pseudomonas carnis 6,697,465 117 94,982 B,C,D,E,F + D,H,R,U A 59.44 ERS5639574
Bi13 Erwinia aphidicola 4,939,014 42 383,165 B,C,D,E,F + A,C,E,H,R,U 56.33 ERS5639577
Bi26 Arthrobacter sp. Bi26 5,112,477 217 43,594 F + H,R,U 66.4 ERS5639578
Bi27 Pedobacter sp. Bi27 6,285,703 23 908,772 A,H,R,U A,U 39.01 ERS5639579
Bi35 Stenotrophomonas lactitubi 4,595,590 106 67,604 + A,C,D,H,Q,R,U 66.03 ERS5639581
Bi36 Pedobacter sp. Bi36 6,291,372 23 901,067 A,H,R A, U 38.98 ERS5639582
Bi44 Microbacterium foliorum 3,535,885 57 117,718 + H,R,U 68.79 ERS5639584
Bi45 Enterobacter ludwigii 4,753,187 20 697,319 + A,E,H,R,U J 54.61 ERS5639585
Bi46 Agrobacterium fabrum 5,161,469 20 379,239 E,H,R,T,U A, L, S, U 59.17 ERS5639586
Bi64 Pseudomonas carnis 6,761,930 127 163,868 B,C,D,E,F + A,D,H,R,U A, U 58.02 ERS5639588
Bi66 Stenotrophomonas lactitubi 4,755,071 138 114,998 F + A,C,D,H,Q,R,U 65.19 ERS5639589
Bi70 Pseudomonas sp. Bi70 5,263,541 236 33,755 B,C,D,E,F,H + H,R,U 62.36 ERS5639590
Bi76 Microbacterium oxydans 3,812,380 110 78,635 68.34 ERS5639593
Bi80 Bacillus frigoritolerans 5,107,215 1,016 7,008 40.48 ERS5639594
Bi81 Stenotrophomonas lactitubi 4,657,418 91 99,706 65.95 ERS5639595
Bi82 Priestia megaterium 5,805,678 65 369,445 37.9 ERS5639596
Bi83 Arthrobacter sp. Bi83 4,893,187 121 76,950 65.19 ERS5639597
Bi84 Peribacillus simplex 5,576,719 465 27,035 39.86 ERS5639598
Bi89 Pseudomonas koreensis 6,136,482 73 165,400 60.15 ERS5639600
Bi91 Rhodococcus fascians 5,679,420 54 276,010 64.41 ERS5639601
Bi96 Peribacillus sp. Bi96 5,513,925 75 186,917 39.53 ERS5639602
Bi98 Microbacterium sp. Bi98 3,651,233 25 247,909 67.94 ERS5639603
Bi102 Stenotrophomonas lactitubi 4,657,928 103 75,776 + A,C,D,H,Q,R 65.92 ERS5639604
Bi106 Rahnella aquatilis 4,557,699 1,614 3,019 51.67 ERS5639653
Bi110 Pseudomonas carnis 6,696,265 62 160,812 59.44 ERS5639654
Bi111 Pseudomonas carnis 6,695,877 169 75,930 59.44 ERS5639655
Bi112 Pseudomonas mediterranea 6,109,875 377 28,693 B + R,U A,B,C 61.4 ERS5639656
Bi118 Massilia sp. Bi118 5,786,026 48 291,100 L + A,D,H,R,U,X 65.3 ERS5639658
Bi121 Microbacterium sp. Bi121 3,088,809 20 392,560 H,R,U 67.75 ERS5639659
Bi122 Stenotrophomonas lactitubi 4,652,813 125 66,023 + A,C,D,H,Q,R,U 65.96 ERS5639660
Bi123 Pseudomonas sp. Bi123 6,405,172 52 250,449 B,C,D,E,F,H + D,H,R,U A,B,C 59.37 ERS5639661
Bi126 Pedobacter sp. Bi126 6,291,746 22 1,097,689 A,H,R A, L, U 38.98 ERS5639662
Bi128 Microbacterium sp. Bi128 6,566,320 1,694 4,998 + H,R,U 68.6 ERS6138326
Bi130 Pseudomonas sp. Bi130 6,574,124 54 239,349 B,C,D,E,F,H + D,H,R,U A A,B,C 59.41 ERS5640634
Bi133 Peribacillus simplex 5,310,979 214 42,292 + A,B,D,H,Q,R,U S, U 40.03 ERS5640636
Bi134 Peribacillus sp. Bi134 5,473,506 31 522,968 + A,B,D,H,Q,R,U 40.2 ERS5640637
a

ANI cutoff, 96%. Capital letters depict actual genes identified within the inspected metabolic processes.

b

Strain taxonomy reflects the lowest and unique rank as defined by GTDBTK (v1.6.0) with data version r202.

c

The identification in each bacterial genome is depicted by the plus sign.

Strains were isolated from the rhizosphere of cultivated barley (Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. vulgare), the fourth most cultivated cereal worldwide (7), which was grown in an agricultural soil used for previous barley-microbiota investigations (8, 9). Bacterial rhizosphere fractions were obtained by detaching the soil adhering the uppermost 6 cm of barley roots by vortexing in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) buffer. Serial dilutions were plated onto R2A and nutrient agar media and incubated at 20°C for 48 to 72 h (10, 11). Individual CFUs were selected for isolation based on morphological variation; clean isolate liquid cultures were stored at −80°C in 70% glycerol following 24 to 48 h of shaking incubation at 27°C.

DNA was extracted as per the manufacturer’s instructions using the FastDNA spin kit for soil (MP Biomedicals, USA). Individual bacterial isolates were subjected to whole-genome sequencing using the “standard service” of MicrobesNG (Birmingham, UK). Briefly, bacterial genomic DNA libraries were prepared using the Nextera XT library prep kit (Illumina, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol with the following modifications: 2 ng of DNA were input, and PCR elongation time was increased to 1 min. DNA quantification and library preparation were conducted on a Hamilton Microlab STAR automated liquid handling system. Pooled libraries were quantified using the Kapa Biosystems library quantification kit for Illumina on a Roche light cycler 96 quantitative PCR (qPCR) machine. Libraries were sequenced by using an Illumina HiSeq instrument with a 250-bp paired-end protocol. Reads were adapter trimmed using Trimmomatic (v0.30) with a sliding window quality cutoff of Q15 (12). De novo assembly was performed using SPAdes (v3.7), and contigs were annotated using Prokka (v1.12) (13, 14). On the basis of GC content, unambiguous taxonomic annotations generated using amphora classification (15) and whole-genome average nucleotide identity (ANI) to identify individual “founder” members (ANI cutoff, 96%) yielded 41 genomes retained for downstream analyses. To compare only components of characterized metabolic pathways, predicted genes were concatenated and annotated with eggNOG-Mapper (v1.0.3) (16, 17). The resultant annotation file was parsed in Python to generate a table of taxonomic identities (IDs) of Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) ortholog (KO) identifiers. From this table, a presence-absence matrix of all KOs predicted at least once in each isolate was generated in R (https://www.r-project.org). Predicted proteomes were clustered using OrthoFinder (v2.2.1) and functionally annotated using InterProScan (v5.29-68.0) (18, 19). Clusters and annotations were aggregated using KinFin (v1.0) (20). Cluster and KO intersections were defined using UpSetR (v1.3.3) (21). The phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1) was constructed using bcgTree (v1.1.0) and RAxML (v8.2.12), using RAxML’s GTRGAMMA model and 100 bootstrap iterations (22, 23); default parameters were used for all analyses unless otherwise noted.

FIG 1.

FIG 1

Whole-genome phylogenetic tree of individual genomes (ANI cutoff, 96%) constructed incorporating additional sequences for Bifidobacterium longum NCC2705 (GCA_000007525), Microbacterium foliorum DSM 12966 (GCA_000956415), Bacillus subtilis NCIB 3610 (GCA_006088795), Pedobacter luteus DSM 22385 (GCA_900168015), Stenotrophomonas lactitubi M15 (GCA_002803515), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 (GCA_000006765). Protein predictions were obtained using Prokka (v1.14.6), and the tree was constructed with 100 bootstrap iterations and annotated with iTOL (24). The size of circular shapes on the periphery of the tree reflects the number of the indicated PGPR genes ranging from 1 to 7 present in each individual sample.

The collection is available as frozen isolates preserved in 300 to 500 µL of nutrient or R2A medium containing 50% glycerol and maintained at −70°C. To revive the frozen cultures, we recommend using a sterile inoculating loop to transfer a small amount (e.g., 50 µL equivalent) of the frozen culture onto a nutrient or R2A agar medium base following standard microbiological procedures. The plates should be incubated at 27°C for 24 to 48 h.

Data availability.

The genomic sequences reported in this study are deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). Accession numbers for the individual genomes are provided in Table 1. To acquire isolates, or for questions or suggestions, please contact Davide Bulgarelli at d.bulgarelli@dundee.ac.uk.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are thankful to Federica Caradonia (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy) and Carmen Escudero-Martinez (University of Dundee, UK) for their technical assistance during the development of the collection.

This work was supported by a BBSRC iCASE studentship awarded to D.B. (BB/M016811/1) and partnered by the James Hutton Limited (Invergowrie, UK). F.C. was supported by an Erasmus+ Traineeship program (European Commission). L.H.B. was supported by a James Black Prize Studentship (University of Dundee). J.N.O. was supported by an ERC advanced grant “Shuffle” (project ID 669182) awarded to Robbie Waugh/The James Hutton Institute. S.R.-A., J.C.A., and D.B. are currently supported by the Horizon 2020 Framework Program Innovation Action “CIRCLES” (European Commission grant agreement 818290) awarded to the University of Dundee. James Hutton researchers receive financial support from the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Service Division of the Scottish Government.

Contributor Information

Davide Bulgarelli, Email: d.bulgarelli@dundee.ac.uk.

Irene L. G. Newton, Indiana University, Bloomington

REFERENCES

  • 1.Compant S, Samad A, Faist H, Sessitsch A. 2019. A review on the plant microbiome: ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application. J Adv Res 19:29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2019.03.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Schlaeppi K, Bulgarelli D. 2015. The plant microbiome at work. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 28:212–217. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-10-14-0334-FI. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Escudero-Martinez C, Bulgarelli D. 2019. Tracing the evolutionary routes of plant-microbiota interactions. Curr Opin Microbiol 49:34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2019.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lugtenberg B, Kamilova F. 2009. Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 63:541–556. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.62.081307.162918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vorholt JA, Vogel C, Carlström CI, Müller DB. 2017. Establishing causality: opportunities of synthetic communities for plant microbiome research. Cell Host Microbe 22:142–155. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2017.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Kawashima M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. 2016. KEGG as a reference resource for gene and protein annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 44:D457–D462. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Newton AC, Flavell AJ, George TS, Leat P, Mullholland B, Ramsay L, Revoredo-Giha C, Russell J, Steffenson BJ, Swanston JS, Thomas WTB, Waugh R, White PJ, Bingham IJ. 2011. Crops that feed the world 4. Barley: a resilient crop? Strengths and weaknesses in the context of food security. Food Sec 3:141. doi: 10.1007/s12571-011-0126-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rodrigo AT, Katharin B-C, Morris J, Hedley PE, Russell J, Paterson E, Baggs EM, Eyal F, Davide B. 2020. A footprint of plant eco-geographic adaptation on the composition of the barley rhizosphere bacterial microbiota. Sci Rep 10:12916. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69672-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Robertson-Albertyn S, Alegria Terrazas R, Balbirnie K, Blank M, Janiak A, Szarejko I, Chmielewska B, Karcz J, Morris J, Hedley PE, George TS, Bulgarelli D. 2017. Root hair mutations displace the barley rhizosphere microbiota. Front Plant Sci 8:1094. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Atlas RM. 2005. Handbook of media for environmental microbiology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Reasoner DJ, Geldreich EE. 1985. A new medium for the enumeration and subculture of bacteria from potable water. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:1–7. doi: 10.1128/aem.49.1.1-7.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, Lesin VM, Nikolenko SI, Pham S, Prjibelski AD, Pyshkin AV, Sirotkin AV, Vyahhi N, Tesler G, Alekseyev MA, Pevzner PA. 2012. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol 19:455–477. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Seemann T. 2014. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30:2068–2069. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kerepesi C, Szalkai B, Grolmusz V. 2015. Visual analysis of the quantitative composition of metagenomic communities: the AmphoraVizu webserver. Microb Ecol 69:695–697. doi: 10.1007/s00248-014-0502-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Coelho LP, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, Bork P. 2017. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-Mapper. Mol Biol Evol 34:2115–2122. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Huerta-Cepas J, Szklarczyk D, Heller D, Hernandez-Plaza A, Forslund SK, Cook H, Mende DR, Letunic I, Rattei T, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, Bork P. 2019. eggNOG 5.0: a hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D309–D314. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Emms DM, Kelly S. 2019. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol 20:238. doi: 10.1186/s13059-019-1832-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jones P, Binns D, Chang HY, Fraser M, Li W, McAnulla C, McWilliam H, Maslen J, Mitchell A, Nuka G, Pesseat S, Quinn AF, Sangrador-Vegas A, Scheremetjew M, Yong SY, Lopez R, Hunter S. 2014. InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification. Bioinformatics 30:1236–1240. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Laetsch DR, Blaxter ML. 2017. KinFin: software for taxon-aware analysis of clustered protein sequences. G3 (Bethesda) 7:3349–3357. doi: 10.1534/g3.117.300233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Conway JR, Lex A, Gehlenborg N. 2017. UpSetR: an R package for the visualization of intersecting sets and their properties. Bioinformatics 33:2938–2940. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ankenbrand MJ, Keller A. 2016. bcgTree: automatized phylogenetic tree building from bacterial core genomes. Genome 59:783–791. doi: 10.1139/gen-2015-0175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stamatakis A. 2014. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312–1313. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Letunic I, Bork P. 2021. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 49:W293–W296. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

The genomic sequences reported in this study are deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). Accession numbers for the individual genomes are provided in Table 1. To acquire isolates, or for questions or suggestions, please contact Davide Bulgarelli at d.bulgarelli@dundee.ac.uk.


Articles from Microbiology Resource Announcements are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES