Creation of microbial inoculants
The rhizosphere microbiomes in this experiment were derived from microbial inoculants prepared in the laboratory. For the vermicompost inoculant (V), 150 g of Worm Power (Avon, NY, USA) vermicompost was dissolved in 300 ml of sterile 10% Luria Broth, which was used in place of sterile water to help stimulate microbial growth. Sterilized glass beads were then added and the mixture was homogenized using an oscillating shaker set at 180 rpm for 1 hour. After, the mixture was then filtered through 4 layers of sterilized cheese cloth and the resulting slurry was used as our vermicompost inoculant. For the sterile vermicompost inoculant (SV), we followed the same procedure using Worm Power vermicompost that was autoclaved twice with a 48-hour resting period between cycles, which significantly reduces the living microbial community. This treatment was included to control for the effects of the plant nutrients in Worm Power likely present in the vermicompost inoculant. For the control inoculant (C), sterile 10% Luria Broth was used with nothing added.
Greenhouse trial
Tomato plants (S. lycopersicum cultivar Ailsa Craig) were derived from the tomato germplasm collection at the United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS) Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture and Health (Ithaca, NY, USA) and they were grown in a plant growth facility at Boyce Thompson Institute (Ithaca, NY, USA) under conditions and approval set by a Cornell Institutional Biosafety Committee agreement. Ailsa Craig tomato is an inbred commercial greenhouse variety that can be purchased from numerous suppliers and grown without restriction. Limited seed are available for research purposes at no cost from the authors or the Tomato Genetics Resource Center at UC Davis (https://tgrc.ucdavis.edu).T o start, we filled 15 magenta boxes with sterilized potting soil (50% Metromix 360, 50% Cornell mix + Osmocote) to grow our seedlings. Each magenta box was randomly assigned to one of the three inoculant treatments, giving us five plants per treatment in this experiment. Before planting, each box received 20 ml of a solution made of 16 ml of one of the microbial inoculants and 4 ml of 500 ppm Peter’s excel fertilizer (15-5-15 NPK). The solution was then mixed into the soil to keep the medium moist and evenly distribute the fertilizer and inoculant solution. We then planted one pre-germinated Ailsa Craig seed into each magenta box and watered each seedling with 10 ml of sterile water.
After planting, the magenta boxes were placed in a growth chamber set at 250 µmol of light, 10% humidity, alternating between 28ºC for 16 hours and 23ºC for 8 hours for three weeks. Seedlings were then hardened off in the growth chamber, transplanted into 6-inch pots filled with the same sterilized potting soil, then placed in a seedling greenhouse to be hardened off before the rest of the experiment. The seedling greenhouse had day temperatures between 25ºC and 27ºC, night temperatures between 18ºC and 20ºC, and natural light and humidity. The seedlings were hand watered every day with tap water during this phase. Soils were covered with sterilized aluminum foil to reduce outside microbial contamination. After one week, tomatoes were transplanted into one-gallon pots filled with sterilized potting soil and placed in a new greenhouse with day temperatures between 24ºC and 26ºC, night temperatures between 21ºC and 23ºC, and natural light and humidity. The plants were kept in this greenhouse for the remainder of the experiment. Plants were watered daily with tap water and fertilized with 150 ppm N Peter’s excel fertilizer three times a week. Sterilized aluminum foil was placed over the soil to reduce microbial contamination from the air. Aboveground plant biomass and rhizosphere soil samples were harvested three months after transplanting. Rhizosphere soil was collected by gently breaking up the tomato root ball, holding the roots, and gently shaking away unattached soil. The soil adhering to the roots was considered rhizosphere soil, which was sampled and stored at -20°C for DNA extractions. Upon harvesting, plants were placed in a drying oven set at 60ºC for one week and total aboveground dry biomass (g) was then recorded.
Soil microbiome DNA extractions, sequencing, and analysis
DNA was extracted from rhizosphere soil samples collected at harvest using a PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturers protocol. Approximately 200–250 mg of frozen rhizosphere soil from each pot was used for each extraction. We then amplified the 16S rRNA and ITS gene sequences to capture bacterial and fungal taxonomic data using the PCR and sequencing procedures outlined in Bray et al. [18]. For the 16S rRNA gene, we used the primers 341F (5′-195 CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG-3′) and 805R (5′-GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC-3′) and for the ITS gene we used the primers TS1F (5′-CTTGGTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAA-3′) and 58A2R (5′-CTGCGTTCTTCATCGAT-3′). Following amplification, we performed an initial clean-up of our DNA using a HighPrep PCR Clean-up System (MAGBIO Genomics, Gaithersburg, MD, USA). We then attached unique index primers to the amplicons with a second PCR cycle. Indexed samples were then cleaned and normalized with a SequalPrep Normalization Plant Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) then added into two separate pools for 16S and ITS amplicons. The two pooled samples were then ran on a 1.2% agarose gel with SyberSafe added and then the target band was excised. The pooled DNA samples was then extracted from the gel with a Wizard SV Gel and PCR Clean-Up System (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). We then submitted the pooled samples to the Cornell Genomic Facility (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA) for Illumina (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) barcoded sequencing on the MiSeq platform using a 600-cycle MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 for the 16S rRNA gene pool and a 500-cycle MiSeq Reagent Kit v2 for the ITS pool.
To process our bacterial and fungal sequences, we used a modified version of the pipeline from the Brazilian Microbiome Project (http://www.brmicrobiome.org/). Mothur v. 1.3613 was used to merge paired-end sequence (make.contigs), trim off primers (trim.seqs, pdiffs = 2, maxambig = 0), remove singletons (unique.seqs → split.abund, cutoff = 1), and classify sequences (97% similarity) using the GreenGenes v. 13.8 database for 16S rRNA gene sequences and UNITE v.7 database for ITS sequences. OTUs that were suspected to not be of fungal or bacterial origin were removed (remove.lineage). QIIME v. 1.9.114 was then used to cluster OTUs and create our bacterial and fungal OTU tables for statistical analysis in R (Rproject.org).
Analysis of tomato foliar and fruit phenotypes
Dried foliar tissue from each plant was used for analysis of foliar tissue nitrogen content at the Cornell Stable Isotope Laboratory (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA) using a Thermo Delta V isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS) interfaced to an NC2500 elemental analyzer. The analysis provided information on δ15N as well as %N, which was used along with total aboveground dry biomass to calculate total foliar N (g).
To analyze the effect of inoculant treatment on fruit ethylene production, we harvested one fruit at the breaker stage from each plant during the trial and analyzed ethylene production based on modified procedures outlined in Nguyen et al. [19]. To allow wound ethylene to subside, fruits were left on the lab bench overnight before analysis. The following day, fruits were placed into sealed 250 ml air-tight mason jars and incubated for 3 hours. We then drew 1 ml air samples from each mason jar and analyzed the sample using an Agilent 6850 GC System equipped with a flame ionization detector. Ethylene concentrations were then calculated by comparison with a standard of known concentration and normalizing of fruit mass. We recorded one measurement per fruit every day for four days.
To analyze how fruit carotenoid content may change in response to the rhizosphere microbiome, we harvested one mature green, breaker, and red ripe fruit from each plant and performed carotenoid extractions. After being harvested and remaining on the lab bench overnight, fruits were cut, frozen in liquid nitrogen, and ground to a fine powder. We then aliquoted ~ 100 mg of frozen ground tissue into 2 ml tubes with glass beads and lyophilized the samples. Each tube then received 50 µl of magnesium carbonate (MgCO3) at a 0.003M concentration followed by 500 µl of 100% ethyl acetate. The tubes were then shaken for 30 seconds, incubated at 4ºC for 15 minutes, then shaken again. Samples were then centrifuged at max speed for 5 minutes, then the supernatant was transferred to a clean 2 ml tube. The samples were then dried down completely in a rotovap. The samples were analyzed using a slight modification of the method of Yazdani et al. [20]. The analysis began by dissolving the samples in an injection solvent made of ethyl acetate. This solvent also contained diindolylmethane (DIM) at a concentration of 0.05mg/mL, which served as an internal standard for later quantification. Next, an ultra-performance convergence chromatography system (Waters UPC2) equipped with a Viridis HSS C18 SB column (3.0 × 100 mm, 1.8 µm particle size) was used to separate the compounds within the samples. The column temperature was set to 40°C, and the mobile phase flowed at a rate of 1 mL/min.
To achieve this separation, a gradient elution technique was employed. This technique uses a two-part mobile phase system, consisting of supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) and methanol (MeOH). The gradual change in the ratio of these components over time helps to separate the various compounds within the sample. The chromatography column was initially equilibrated with 1% MeOH. To separate the analytes, a non-linear, concave gradient was applied. This gradient gradually increased the MeOH concentration to 20% over 7.5 minutes. The mobile phase composition was then held constant for an additional 4.5 minutes. Finally, the column was re-equilibrated back to its starting conditions with 1% MeOH over 3 minutes.
A Waters photodiode array (PDA) detector was used to monitor the presence of carotenoids by measuring their absorbance across a wavelength range of 250nm to 700nm. To quantify each specific carotenoid, we optimized a unique detection wavelength that balanced sensitivity (high signal) and selectivity (minimal interference from other compounds). Beta-carotene served as the calibration standard. Concentrations of all other carotenoids were then expressed as equivalents of beta-carotene using TargetLynx software within MassLynx 4.1 (Waters software).
Foliar and fruit tissue RNA extractions, sequencing, and analysis
In order to assess the effect of the rhizosphere microbiome on plant gene expression and regulatory pathways, we performed RNA extractions on tomato foliar and fruit tissue. We gathered foliar tissue from plants at four weeks old (young) and at harvest (mature). Foliar tissue was sampled from random leaves sampled towards the apical meristem on each plant and the composite sample was then immediately frozen, ground in liquid nitrogen, and stored at -80ºC until extraction. Fruit tissue was gathered from 1–2 mature green (MG), breaker (BR), and red ripe (RR) fruits from each plant. Upon harvesting, we recorded the weight (g) of each fruit for our analysis of average fruit weight and left the fruit on the lab bench overnight to allow wound ethylene to subside. Fruits were then cut, frozen, and ground in liquid nitrogen. Powdered fruit samples were then stored at -80ºC until extraction.
RNA was extracted from foliar and fruit tissue using modified reagents and procedures from the Qiagen RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). RNA in each sample was then quantified using a nanodrop and ran on a 1% agarose gel to verify the RNA quantity and quality of each extract. Total RNA from foliar and fruit tissue was then used to construct strand-specific RNA libraries as described in Zhong et al. [21] using the Illumina HiSeq platform at the Cornell DNA sequencing core facility.
Raw RNA-Seq reads were processed to remove adaptors and low-quality sequences using Trimmomatic (version 0.36) with default parameters [22]. Cleaned reads shorter than 40 bp were discarded. The remaining cleaned reads were aligned to the ribosomal RNA database [23] using bowtie (version 1.1.2) [24] allowing up to three mismatches, and those aligned were discarded. The remaining high-quality cleaned reads were aligned to the tomato reference genome (SL3.0 and ITAG3.2) using HISAT2 (version 2.1.0) [25]. Based on the alignments, raw read counts for each gene were calculated and then normalized to reads per kilobase of exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM). Raw read counts were then fed to DESeq2 [26] to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between inoculant treatments across foliar and fruit developmental stages, with a cutoff of adjusted P value < 0.05 and fold change > 2. DEGs between inoculant treatments and across developmental stages are reported in Related File 1.
To gain insight into the influence of the microbiome on host developmental processes and regulatory pathways, we performed gene ontology (GO) analysis using the upregulated and downregulated genes reported in Related File 1. For each pairwise comparison between inoculant treatments across the foliar and fruit developmental stages, upregulated and downregulated gene lists were uploaded to agriGO v2.0 [27], which provided enriched GO terms for each pairwise comparison. Complete results from the GO analysis are reported in Related File 2.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses of the data were performed in R. After obtaining bacterial and fungal OTU tables in QIIME, the bacterial dataset was rarefied to 10724 reads per sample and the fungal dataset was rarefied to 37 reads per sample, which were the lowest number of reads for a sample in each dataset. We then calculated Bray-Curtis distances between samples, which were utilized to perform a principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) and create an ordination to visualize differences in bacterial and fungal community composition between inoculant treatments. We then quantitatively assessed the effect of inoculant treatment on community composition with PERMANOVA using the adonis2 function. Due to a lack of adequate post hoc tests with adonis2, we could not perform pairwise comparisons of community composition between inoculant treatments following our analysis and only assessed the main effect of inoculant treatment on bacterial and fungal community composition. PERMANOVA requires homogeneity of variance, which we analyzed using the betadisper function. Shannon diversity indexes were then calculated for each sample and we compared the average Shannon diversity of the inoculant treatments using one-way ANOVA. We then used the emmeans function to perform pairwise comparisons of Shannon diversity between treatment groups. ANOVA assumptions were verified using plotting methods. Stacked relative abundance plots were created to further visualize shifts in microbial taxonomic composition between inoculant treatments. One-way ANOVAs were then utilized to determine the effect of inoculant treatment on relative abundances of the seven most abundant bacterial and fungal phyla and classes in the dataset. ANOVA assumptions for each analysis were verified using plotting methods and data transformations were performed as necessary. Following ANOVA, we used the emmeans function to perform pairwise comparisons of mean relative abundances of each phyla and class between inoculant treatments. In cases where transformations did not help meet ANOVA assumptions, the Kruskal-Wallis Test was performed to assess the effect of treatment on relative abundances, followed by pairwise Wilcox tests to perform pairwise comparisons between treatment means.
To determine the effect of our inoculant treatment on total aboveground dry biomass and foliar nitrogen content we utilized one-way ANOVAs in R. Normality of residuals and homoscedasticity were verified for each model using plotting methods. We then utilized the emmeans function to perform pairwise comparisons of inoculant treatment.
Mixed effect modeling with the lmer function in R was used to assess the effect of inoculant treatment, developmental stage, and the interaction between the two factors on average fruit weight, with treatment and developmental stage as a mixed effect and plant replicate as a random effect. Normality of residuals and homoscedasticity were verified using plotting methods. Following ANOVA, we used the emmeans function in R to perform pairwise comparisons of group means. Mixed effect modeling with the lmer function was also used to determine the effect of inoculant treatment, day of measurement, and the interaction between the two factors on fruit ethylene production. Treatment and day of measurement were treated as fixed effects, while plant replicate was treated as a random effect. Normality of residuals and homoscedasticity were verified for each model using plotting methods. Following ANOVA, we used the emmeans function to perform pairwise comparisons of ethylene production between treatment groups and day of measurement. The effect of inoculant treatment, fruit ripening stage, and the interaction between the two factors on carotenoid content were assessed using linear mixed effect modeling with the lmer function with treatment and developmental stage treated as fixed effects and plant replicate treated as a random effect. Normality of residuals and homoscedasticity were verified for each model using plotting methods. Data transformations were performed as necessary to meet ANOVA assumptions. The emmeans function was used to perform pairwise comparisons of carotenoid content between the treatment groups and developmental stages. For these analyses involving two factors (i.e. inoculant treatment and development stage), we report and discuss the effects of the interaction term throughout the results section.