Abstract
Fruit microbiomes are capable of protecting their hosts from harmful pathogens and aiding in biocontrol; therefore, it is important to understand how differences in host genotype shape fruit microbial communities. The fruit species and even cultivars within a species can harbor different fruit microbiomes, but it has been difficult to establish how a single host gene can shape the microbiome structure. We investigated two genotypes of ‘Greensleeves’ apples with reduced sorbitol biosynthesis through antisense suppression of aldose 6-phosphate reductase with the wild type (WT) to assess how sugar composition of the fruit surface impacts microbial communities. We hypothesized that reduced sorbitol genotypes A4 and A10 would show an epiphytic microbiome different from that of the WT that corresponds to a difference in sugar composition on the fruit surface at harvest and during storage with and without postharvest treatment of fruit with 1-methycyclopropene (1-MCP), which is an inhibitor of ethylene perception. Throughout the sampling window (at harvest, 7 weeks storage, 13 weeks storage) across the 2 years of the study, the genotype, but not 1-MCP, was a significant predictor of microbiome composition. The A10 and A4 lines had an increased abundance of the pathogenic fungal genus Acremonium compared with that of the WT in one year. However, while A4 and A10 had different sugar compositions than that of WT in fruit flesh, no differences on the fruit surface were found. In addition, A4 and A10 showed microbiomes that were different from each other as well as different from that of the WT despite having the same reduced sorbitol phenotype, thus making it difficult to link microbiome differences to a specific physiological mechanism. This work represents an important step in showing the first example, to our knowledge, of how the cascading effects resulting from silencing a single gene can impact the assembly of postharvest fruit microbiomes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
The genotype, but not 1-MCP, was a significant predictor of apple microbiome composition.
- Taxon
- Apples
Malus domesticat1 - Material
- Reduced Sorbitol Genotypet0
- Outcome
- microbiome compositione1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Reduced Sorbitol Genotype Alters Postharvest Microbiomes”
t1“Postharvest Microbiomes of ‘Greensleeves’ Apples”
e1“the genotype, but not 1-MCP, was a significant predictor of microbiome composition”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP postharvest treatment did not significantly affect apple microbiome composition.
- Taxon
- ApplesMalus domesticat1
- Treatment
- 1-methycyclopropene (1-MCP)e2
- Outcome
- microbiome compositione1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Postharvest Microbiomes of ‘Greensleeves’ Apples”
e1“the genotype, but not 1-MCP, was a significant predictor of microbiome composition”
e2“postharvest treatment of fruit with 1-methycyclopropene (1-MCP)”
Claim · model-written summary
The A4 and A10 apple lines had different fruit flesh sugar compositions than the wild type.
- Taxon
- ApplesMalus domesticat1
- Material
- A4 and A10e4
- Outcome
- sugar compositionse4
- Qualifier
- in fruit fleshe4
- Comparator
- WTe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Postharvest Microbiomes of ‘Greensleeves’ Apples”
e4“while A4 and A10 had different sugar compositions than that of WT in fruit flesh, no differences on the fruit surface were found”
Claim · model-written summary
The A4 and A10 apple lines showed no differences in fruit surface sugar composition compared with the wild type.
- Taxon
- ApplesMalus domesticat1
- Material
- A4 and A10e4
- Outcome
- differences on the fruit surfacee4
- Comparator
- WTe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Postharvest Microbiomes of ‘Greensleeves’ Apples”
e4“while A4 and A10 had different sugar compositions than that of WT in fruit flesh, no differences on the fruit surface were found”
Claim · model-written summary
The A10 and A4 apple lines had increased abundance of the pathogenic fungal genus Acremonium compared with the wild type in one year.
- Taxon
- ApplesMalus domesticat1
- Material
- A10 and A4 linese3
- Interactor
- AcremoniumAcremoniume3pathogen
- Outcome
- abundance of the pathogenic fungal genus Acremoniume3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Qualifier
- in one yeare3
- Comparator
- WTe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Postharvest Microbiomes of ‘Greensleeves’ Apples”
e3“The A10 and A4 lines had an increased abundance of the pathogenic fungal genus Acremonium compared with that of the WT in one year”
Claim · model-written summary
The A4 and A10 apple lines had microbiomes different from each other and from the wild type despite the same reduced sorbitol phenotype.
- Taxon
- ApplesMalus domesticat1
- Material
- A4 and A10e5
- Outcome
- microbiomese5
- Qualifier
- despite having the same reduced sorbitol phenotypee5
- Comparator
- WTe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Postharvest Microbiomes of ‘Greensleeves’ Apples”
e5“A4 and A10 showed microbiomes that were different from each other as well as different from that of the WT despite having the same reduced sorbitol phenotype”
The same questions in other papers
1-methylcyclopropene · soil: biology · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.