Diversity and plant growth-promoting traits of endophytic bacteria isolated from maize cropped in organic and low-input agricultural systems in southern Brazil
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) may enhance plant growth and health through several mechanisms, contributing for sustainable agriculture. We isolated and characterized endophytic bacteria from stems of landrace maize (Zea mays L.) grown under low-input and organic systems in southern Brazil. The 16S rRNA analysis revealed 83 isolates within 14 genera, including α-Proteobacteria, β-Proteobacteria, γ-Proteobacteria, Actinomycetia, and Bacilli classes. The synthesis of indolic compounds was widespread among the strains, as well as the enhancement of N concentration in N-free media, a putative capacity for biological nitrogen fixation. Phosphate solubilization prevailed in Burkholderia and Paraburkholderia strains, while siderophores production was observed in all genera, except Microbacterium. Inoculation with selected strains confirmed growth-promotion on maize plantlets, particularly Sphingomonas sp. CNPSo 2378 and Bacillus velezensis CNPSo 2384, whose genomes were sequenced and revealed PGPB features and evolutionary relationships, shedding light on the diversity, functional traits, and occurrence in low-input and organic agricultural systems. Data summary The 16S rRNA gene sequences have been deposited in the NCBI GenBank database, with accession numbers provided in supplementary material (Table S1). The genomic sequences have also been deposited in the GenBank database, with the following accession numbers: JAXCMJ000000000 for CNPSo 2378 and JAXCMK000000000 for CNPSo 2384. Raw data on the effects of bacterial isolates on the plant growth-promoting of maize plantlets are available at figshare database, with the following DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.27610290.
Article activity feed
-
Thank you for the privilege of reviewing your work and apologies for the delay. The reviewers find your work of interest to the community but suggest some minor revisions before this work can be accepted for publication in Access Microbiology. Please return the manuscript within 45 days; if you cannot complete the modification within this time period, please contact me. If you do not wish to modify the manuscript and prefer to submit it to another journal, notify me immediately so that the manuscript may be formally withdrawn from consideration at Access Microbiology. Please note the following requirement for re-submitting your revised manuscript: • Upload point-by-point responses to the issues raised by the reviewers in a file named "Response to Reviewers," NOT in your cover letter.
-
Comments to Author
The authors aimed to isolate bacteria from maize grown under organic and low-input cropping conditions and study their ability to promote plant growth. While this research is interesting and valuable, the article could benefit from several improvements. The final section of the results, which discusses genome assembly information, would be clearer if it explained the relevance of the findings presented in Table 5 and how they contribute to the overall objectives of the study - rather than describe the parameters of the genomic analysis. The discussion could also be improved by emphasizing the broader significance of the findings rather than addressing each result individually. In addition, the presentation of data requires attention. For instance, Tables 1 and 3 lack standard deviations, which are …
Comments to Author
The authors aimed to isolate bacteria from maize grown under organic and low-input cropping conditions and study their ability to promote plant growth. While this research is interesting and valuable, the article could benefit from several improvements. The final section of the results, which discusses genome assembly information, would be clearer if it explained the relevance of the findings presented in Table 5 and how they contribute to the overall objectives of the study - rather than describe the parameters of the genomic analysis. The discussion could also be improved by emphasizing the broader significance of the findings rather than addressing each result individually. In addition, the presentation of data requires attention. For instance, Tables 1 and 3 lack standard deviations, which are crucial for interpreting results, especially as most experiments were conducted with replicates. I would suggest to transfer Tables 1, 3, 4, and 5 to supplementary data. Furthermore, Figure 3 would benefit from including species names in the legend, and the application of statistical analysis to the results, with the findings clearly reported, would enhance the overall scientific rigor of the study. By addressing these points, the article would become clearer, more focused, and better positioned to engage and inform its audience.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
