1887

Microbial Genomics logo

Volume 10, Issue 3

A metagenomic investigation of phytoplasma diversity in Australian vegetable growing regions Open Access

Abstract

In this study, metagenomic sequence data was used to investigate the phytoplasma taxonomic diversity in vegetable-growing regions across Australia. Metagenomic sequencing was performed on 195 phytoplasma-positive samples, originating either from historic collections (=46) or during collection efforts between January 2015 and June 2022 (=149). The sampled hosts were classified as crop (=155), weed (=24), ornamental (=7), native plant (=6), and insect (=3) species. Most samples came from Queensland (=78), followed by Western Australia (=46), the Northern Territory (=32), New South Wales (=17), and Victoria (=10). Of the 195 draft phytoplasma genomes, 178 met our genome criteria for comparison using an average nucleotide identity approach. Ten distinct phytoplasma species were identified and could be classified within the 16SrII, 16SrXII (PCR only), 16SrXXV, and 16SrXXXVIII phytoplasma groups, which have all previously been recorded in Australia. The most commonly detected phytoplasma taxa in this study were species and subspecies classified within the 16SrII group (=153), followed by strains within the 16SrXXXVIII group (‘. Phytoplasma stylosanthis’; =6). Several geographic- and host-range expansions were reported, as well as mixed phytoplasma infections of 16SrII taxa and ‘. Phytoplasma stylosanthis’. Additionally, six previously unrecorded 16SrII taxa were identified, including five putative subspecies of ‘. Phytoplasma australasiaticum’ and a new putative 16SrII species. PCR and sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene was a suitable triage tool for preliminary phytoplasma detection. Metagenomic sequencing, however, allowed for higher-resolution identification of the phytoplasmas, including mixed infections, than was afforded by only direct Sanger sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. Since the metagenomic approach theoretically obtains sequences of all organisms in a sample, this approach was useful to confirm the host family, genus, and/or species. In addition to improving our understanding of the phytoplasma species that affect crop production in Australia, the study also significantly expands the genomic sequence data available in public sequence repositories to contribute to phytoplasma molecular epidemiology studies, revision of taxonomy, and improved diagnostics.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): ANI , Candidatus Phytoplasma australasiaticum , Candidatus Phytoplasma stylosanthis , draft genomes , metagenomic assembled genomes (MAGs) and unclassified phytoplasmas
© 2024 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001213
2024-03-06
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/10/3/mgen001213.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001213&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Firrao G, Andersen M, Bertaccini A, Boudon E, Bové JM et al. Candidatus Phytoplasma’, a taxon for the wall-less, non-helical prokaryotes that colonize plant phloem and insects. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:1243–1255
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Hogenhout SA, Oshima K, Ammar E-D, Kakizawa S, Kingdom HN et al. Phytoplasmas: bacteria that manipulate plants and insects. Mol Plant Pathol 2008; 9:403–423 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Duduk B, Stepanović J, Yadav A, Rao GP. Phytoplasmas in Weeds and Wild Plants 2018 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Kumari S, Nagendran K, Rai AB, Singh B, Rao GP et al. Global status of phytoplasma diseases in vegetable crops. Front Microbiol 2019; 10:1–15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Hemmati C, Nikooei M, Al-Subhi AM, Al-Sadi AM. History and current status of phytoplasma diseases in the middle east. Biology 2021; 10:1–20 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cobb NA. Tomato blights. Agric Gaz New Wales 1902; 13:410–414
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Helson GAH. The transmission of witches’ broom virus disease of lucerne by the common brown leafhopper, Orosius argentatus (Evans). Aust J Sci Res B 1951; 4:115–124 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hutton EM, Grylls NE. Legume “Little leaf”, a virus disease of subtropical pasture species. Aust J Agric Res 1956; 7:85 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowyer J, Atherton J, Teakle D, A Ahern G. Myooplasma-like bodies in plants affected by legume little leaf, tomato big bud, and lucerne witches’ broom diseases. Aust Jnl Of Bio Sci 1969; 22:271–274 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Seemüller E, Schneider B, Mäurer R, Ahrens U, Daire X et al. Phylogenetic classification of phytopathogenic mollicutes by sequence analysis of 16S ribosomal DNA. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1994; 44:440–446 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibb K, Padovan AC, Mogen BD. Studies on sweet potato little-leaf Phytoplasma detected in sweet potato and other plant species growing in Northern Australia. Phytopathology 1996; 85:169 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis RI, Schneider B, Gibb KS. Detection and differentiation of phytoplasmas in Australia. Aust J Agric Res 1997; 48:535 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Schneider B, Padovan A, De La Rue S, Eichner R, Davis R et al. Detection and differentiation of phytoplasmas in Australia: an update. Aust J Agric Res 1999; 50:333 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Tran‐Nguyen L, Blanche KR, Egan B, Gibb KS. Diversity of phytoplasmas in northern Australian sugarcane and other grasses. Plant Pathol 2000; 49:666–679 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Padovan AC, Gibb KS. Epidemiology of phytoplasma diseases in papaya in Northern Australia. J Phytopathol 2001; 149:649–658 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Davis RI, Jacobson SC, Rue SJDL, Tran-Nguyen L, Gunua TG et al. Phytoplasma disease surveys in the extreme north of Queensland, Australia, and the island of New Guinea. Austral Plant Pathol 2003; 32:269 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Constable FE, Jones J, Gibb KS, Chalmers YM, Symons RH. The incidence, distribution and expression of Australian grapevine yellows, restricted growth and late season leaf curl diseases in selected Australian vineyards. Ann App Biol 2004; 144:205–218 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gopurenko D, Fletcher MJ, Liu J, Gurr GM. Expanding and exploring the diversity of phytoplasmas from lucerne (Medicago sativa). Sci Rep 2016; 6:37746 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis RE, Dally EL, Gundersen DE, Lee IM, Habili N. “Candidatus Phytoplasma australiense,” a new phytoplasma taxon associated with Australian grapevine yellows. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997; 47:262–269 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. White DT, Blackall LL, Scott PT, Walsh KB. Phylogenetic positions of phytoplasmas associated with dieback, yellow crinkle and mosaic diseases of papaya, and their proposed inclusion in “Candidatus Phytoplasma australiense” and a new taxon, “Candidatus Phytoplasma australasia.”. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1998; 48 Pt 3:941–951 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Constable F, Whiting J, Symons B, Symons RH. A new grapevine phytoplasma from the ovens valley of Victoria, Australia. Ext Abstr 2000; 41:147–153
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Marcone C, Gibb KS, Streten C, Schneider B. “Candidatus Phytoplasma spartii”, “Candidatus Phytoplasma rhamni” and “Candidatus Phytoplasma allocasuarinae”, respectively associated with spartium witches’-broom, buckthorn witches’-broom and allocasuarina yellows diseases. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:1025–1029 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhao Y, Davis RE. Criteria for phytoplasma 16Sr group/subgroup delineation and the need of a platform for proper registration of new groups and subgroups. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2121–2123 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Rodrigues Jardim B, Kinoti WM, Tran-Nguyen LTT, Gambley C, Rodoni B et al. Candidatus Phytoplasma stylosanthis’, a novel taxon with a diverse host range in Australia, characterised using multilocus sequence analysis of 16S rRNA, secA, tuf, and rp genes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 71:1–11 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jones LM, Pease B, Perkins SL, Constable FE, Kinoti WM et al. ’Candidatus Phytoplasma dypsidis’, a novel taxon associated with a lethal wilt disease of palms in Australia. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71: [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gibb KS, Constable FE, Moran JR, Padovan AC. Phytoplasmas in Australian grapevines - detection, differentiation and associated diseases. Vitis 1999; 38:107–114
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Streten C, Gibb KS. Phytoplasma diseases in sub-tropical and tropical Australia. Austral Plant Pathol 2006; 35:129 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Dermastia M, Bertaccini A, Constable F, Mehle N. Worldwide distribution and identification of Grapevine yellows diseases. In Dermastia M, Bertaccini A, Constable F, Mehle N. eds Grapevine Yellows Diseases and Their Phytoplasma Agents Switzerland: Springer; 2017 pp 17–46 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Helson GHA. Distribution in Australia of three virus diseases and of their common vector Orosius argentatus (Evans). J Aust Institue Agric Sci 1949; 15:160–161
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pilkington LJ, Gurr GM, Fletcher MJ, Nikandrow A, Elliott E. Vector status of three leafhopper species for Australian lucerne yellows phytoplasma. Aust J Entomol 2004; 43:366–373 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Bertaccini A, Arocha-Rosete Y, Contaldo N, Duduk B, Fiore N et al. Revision of the ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma’ species description guidelines. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Bradbury JM. Minutes of the interim meeting, 12 and 18 July 1996, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A. Int J Syst Evol Bacteriol 1997; 47:174–176
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Al-Subhi AM, Hogenhout SA, Al-Yahyai RA, Al-Sadi AM. Detection, identification, and molecular characterization of the 16SrII-D phytoplasmas infecting vegetable and field crops in Oman. Plant Dis 2018; 102:576–588 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Pilet F, Quaicoe RN, Osagie IJ, Freire M, Foissac X. Multilocus sequence analysis reveals three distinct populations of “Candidatus Phytoplasma palmicola” with a specific geographical distribution on the African continent. Appl Environ Microbiol 2019; 85:1–16 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Orlovskis Z, Canale MC, Haryono M, Lopes JRS, Kuo C-H et al. A few sequence polymorphisms among isolates of Maize bushy stunt phytoplasma associate with organ proliferation symptoms of infected maize plants. Ann Bot 2017; 119:869–884 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Cho S-T, Kung HJ, Huang W, Hogenhout SA, Kuo CH. Species boundaries and molecular markers for the classification of 16SrI phytoplasmas inferred by genome analysis. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:1531 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Rodrigues Jardim B, Tran-Nguyen LTT, Gambley C, Al-Sadi AM, Al-Subhi AM et al. The observation of taxonomic boundaries for the 16SrII and 16SrXXV phytoplasmas using genome-based delimitation. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2023; 73: [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Rodrigues Jardim B, Tran-Nguyen LTT, Gambley C, Rodoni B, Constable FE. Iodixanol density gradients as an effective phytoplasma enrichment approach to improve genome sequencing. Front Microbiol 2022; 13:937648 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Green MJ, Thompson DA, MacKenzie DJ. Easy and efficient DNA extraction from woody plants for the detection of phytoplasmas by polymerase chain reaction. Plant Dis 1999; 83:482–485 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Weisburg WG, Barns SM, Pelletier DA, Lane DJ. 16S ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. J Bacteriol 1991; 173:697–703 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Constable FE, Joyce PA, Rodoni BC. A survey of key Australian pome fruit growing districts for exotic and endemic pathogens. Austral Plant Pathol 2007; 36:165 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25:3389–3402 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:i884–i890 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Prjibelski A, Antipov D, Meleshko D, Lapidus A, Korobeynikov A. Using SPAdes De Novo Assembler. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 2020; 70:1–29 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res 2017; 27:824–834 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Bushnell B. Bbmap: A Fast, Accurate, Splice-Aware Aligner 2014 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Mikheenko A, Saveliev V, Gurevich A. MetaQUAST: evaluation of metagenome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2016; 32:1088–1090 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lagesen K, Hallin P, Rødland EA, Staerfeldt H-H, Rognes T et al. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35:3100–3108 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pritchard L, Glover RH, Humphris S, Elphinstone JG, Toth IK. Genomics and taxonomy in diagnostics for food security: soft-rotting enterobacterial plant pathogens. Anal Methods 2016; 8:12–24 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Marquina D, Andersson AF, Ronquist F. New mitochondrial primers for metabarcoding of insects, designed and evaluated using in silico methods. Mol Ecol Resour 2019; 19:90–104 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. CBOL Plant Working Group A DNA barcode for land plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106:12794–12797 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Kress WJ. Plant DNA barcodes: applications today and in the future. J Syst Evol 2017; 55:291–307 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Guy PL, Cross PA, Wilson CR. A review of the plant virus and viroid records for Tasmania. Australasian Plant Pathol 2020; 49:479–492 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Wilson D, Blanche KR, Gibb KS. Phytoplasmas and disease symptoms of crops and weeds in the semi-arid tropics of the Northern Territory, Australia. Austral Plant Pathol 2001; 30:159 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Blanche KR, Tran‐Nguyen LTT, Gibb KS. Detection, identification and significance of phytoplasmas in grasses in northern Australia. Plant Pathology 2003; 52:505–512 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Andersen MT, Liefting LW, Havukkala I, Beever RE. Comparison of the complete genome sequence of two closely related isolates of “Candidatus Phytoplasma australiense” reveals genome plasticity. BMC Genomics 2013; 14:1–15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Chun J, Oren A, Ventosa A, Christensen H, Arahal DR et al. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:461–466 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Schneider B, Padovan A, De La Rue S, Eichner R, Davis R et al. Detection and differentiation of phytoplasmas in Australia: an update. Aust J Agric Res 1999; 50:333 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol 2017; 35:725–731 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Hedlund BP, Chuvochina M, Hugenholtz P, Konstantinidis KT, Murray AE et al. SeqCode: a nomenclatural code for prokaryotes described from sequence data. Nat Microbiol 2022; 7:1702–1708 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Gundersen DE, Lee I-M. Ultrasensitive detection of phytoplasmas by nested-PCR assays using two universal primer pairs. Phytopathol Mediterr 1996; 35:144–151
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Tan CM, Lin Y-C, Li J-R, Chien Y-Y, Wang C-J et al. Accelerating complete phytoplasma genome assembly by immunoprecipitation-based enrichment and MinION-based DNA sequencing for comparative analyses. Front Microbiol 2021; 12:766221 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Nijo T, Iwabuchi N, Tokuda R, Suzuki T, Matsumoto O et al. Enrichment of phytoplasma genome DNA through a methyl-CpG binding domain-mediated method for efficient genome sequencing. J Gen Plant Pathol 2021; 87:154–163 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Tran-Nguyen LTT, Schneider B. Cesium chloride-Bisbenzimide gradients for separation of Phytoplasma and plant DNA. In Methods in Molecular Biology 2012 pp 381–393 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Hill A, Mandryk M. A study of the virus diseases “Big bud” of tomato and “Yellow Dwarf” of tobacco. Aust J Agric Res 1954; 5:617 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Xu C, Dong W, Shi S, Cheng T, Li C et al. Accelerating plant DNA barcode reference library construction using herbarium specimens: improved experimental techniques. Mol Ecol Resour 2015; 15:1366–1374 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Hollingsworth PM, Graham SW, Little DP. Choosing and using a plant DNA barcode. PLoS One 2011; 6:e19254 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Pearce TL, Scott JB, Pethybridge SJ. First report of a 16SrII-D subgroup phytoplasma associated with pale purple coneflower witches’-broom disease in Australia. Plant Dis 2011; 95:773 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Streten C, Herrington ME, Hutton DG, Persley DM, Waite GK et al. Plant hosts of the phytoplasmas and rickettsia-like-organisms associated with strawberry lethal yellows and green petal diseases. Austral Plant Pathol 2005; 34:165 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Tran-Nguyen LTT, Smith SH, Liberato JR. Sweet potato little leaf strain V4 phytoplasma associated with snake bean in the Northern Territory, Australia. Australasian Plant Dis Notes 2012; 7:147–150 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Sharman M, Filardo F, Brier H, Gambley C, Steele V et al. Phytoplasma disease outbreaks in multiple crops in eastern Australia. In APPS Science Protecting Plant Health Brisbane: 2017 pp 26–28
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Davis RI, Jacobson SC, Waldeck GJ, De La Rue SJ, Gibb KS. A witches’ broom of cocky apple (Planchonia careya) in north Queensland. Austral Plant Pathol 2001; 30:179 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Rue SDL, Padovan A, Gibb K. Stylosanthes is a host for several phytoplasmas, one of which shows unique 16S‐23S intergenic spacer region heterogeneity. J Phytopathol 2001; 149:613–619 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Liefting LW, Padovan AC, Gibb KS, Beever RE, Andersen MT et al. Candidatus Phytoplasma australiense’ is the phytoplasma associated with Australian grapevine yellows, papaya dieback and Phormium yellow leaf diseases. Eur J Plant Pathol 1998; 104:619–623 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Padovan A, Gibb K, Persley D. Association of ‘ Candidatus Phytoplasma australiense’ with green petal and lethal yellows diseases in strawberry. Plant Pathol 2000; 49:362–369 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Streten C, Conde B, Herrington M, Moulden J, Gibb K. Candidatus Phytoplasma australiense is associated with pumpkin yellow leaf curl disease in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Austral Plant Pathol 2005; 34:103–105 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Osmelak JA. Monitoring for potential leafhopper vectors (Hemiptera: Cicadelloidea and Fulgoroidea) of the causal agent of Australian grapevine Yellows. Plant Prot Q 1989; 4:8–10
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Harris MO, Pitzschke A. Plants make galls to accommodate foreigners: some are friends, most are foes. New Phytol 2020; 225:1852–1872 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Abou‐Khater L, Maalouf F, Patil SB, Balech R, Nacouzi D et al. Identification of tolerance to metribuzin and imazethapyr herbicides in faba bean. Crop Sci 2021; 61:2593–2611 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Wei W, Zhao Y. Phytoplasma taxonomy: nomenclature, classification, and identification. Biology 2022; 11:1119 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Zhao Y, Davis RE, Wei W, Shao J, Jomantiene R. Phytoplasma genomes: through mutually complementary mechanisms, gene loss and horizontal acquisition. In Gross DC. eds Genomics of Plant-Associated Bacteria Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2014 pp 1–278 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001213
Loading
A metagenomic investigation of phytoplasma diversity in Australian vegetable growing regions
M Gen 10, 001213 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.001213
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001213
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001213
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

EXCEL

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error