Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Peat-based gnotobiotic plant growth systems for Arabidopsis microbiome research

Nature Protocols volume 16, pages 2450–2470 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The complex structure and function of a plant microbiome are driven by many variables, including the environment, microbe–microbe interactions and host factors. Likewise, resident microbiota can influence many host phenotypes. Gnotobiotic growth systems and controlled environments empower researchers to isolate these variables, and standardized methods equip a global research community to harmonize protocols, replicate experiments and collaborate broadly. We developed two easily constructed peat-based gnotobiotic growth platforms: the FlowPot system and the GnotoPot system. Sterile peat is amenable to colonization by microbiota and supports growth of the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana in the presence or absence of microorganisms. The FlowPot system uniquely allows one to flush the substrate with water, nutrients and/or suspensions of microbiota via an irrigation port, and a mesh retainer allows for the inversion of plants for dip or vacuum infiltration protocols. The irrigation port also facilitates passive drainage, preventing root anoxia. In contrast, the GnotoPot system utilizes a compressed peat pellet, widely used in the horticultural industry. GnotoPot construction has fewer steps and requires less user handling, thereby reducing the risk of contamination. Both protocols take up to 4 d to complete with 4–5 h of hands-on time, including substrate and seed sterilization. In this protocol, we provide detailed assembly and inoculation procedures for the two systems. Both systems are modular, do not require a sterile growth chamber, and cost less than US$2 per vessel.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic illustration of the FlowPot system.
Fig. 2: Schematic illustration of the GnotoPot system.
Fig. 3: A. thaliana grown in FlowPots with axenic or holoxenic substrate.
Fig. 4: A. thaliana grown in GnotoPots with axenic or holoxenic substrate.
Fig. 5: Application for microbiota function studies in planta.
Fig. 6: Application for microbial community studies.

Data availability

All data are presented in this paper are available from the authors without restrictions. Information about the input soil microbial communities is available in Supplementary Table 1. Raw source 16S rRNA gene sequences from this project (for Fig. 6 and Supplementary Table 2) are available in the Sequence Read Archive database under BioProject PRJNA689857, accession numbers SAMN17220890 to SAMN17220933.

References

  1. Round, J. L. & Mazmanian, S. K. The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 9, 313–323 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen, T. et al. A plant genetic network for preventing dysbiosis in the phyllosphere. Nature 580, 653–657 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Durán, P. et al. Microbial interkingdom interactions in roots promote Arabidopsis survival. Cell 175, 973–983.e14 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Busby, P. E. et al. Research priorities for harnessing plant microbiomes in sustainable agriculture. PLoS Biol. 15, e2001793 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu, Y.-X., Qin, Y. & Bai, Y. Reductionist synthetic community approaches in root microbiome research. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 49, 97–102 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bai, Y. et al. Functional overlap of the Arabidopsis leaf and root microbiota. Nature 528, 364–369 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lebeis, S. L. et al. Salicylic acid modulates colonization of the root microbiome by specific bacterial taxa. Science 349, 860–864 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zamioudis, C. et al. Rhizobacterial volatiles and photosynthesis‐related signals coordinate MYB 72 expression in Arabidopsis roots during onset of induced systemic resistance and iron‐deficiency responses. Plant J. 84, 309–322 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Finkel, O. M. et al. The effects of soil phosphorus content on plant microbiota are driven by the plant phosphate starvation response. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000534 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Innerebner, G., Knief, C. & Vorholt, J. A. Protection of Arabidopsis thaliana against leaf-pathogenic Pseudomonas syringae by Sphingomonas strains in a controlled model system. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 3202–3210 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Peiffer, J. A. et al. Diversity and heritability of the maize rhizosphere microbiome under field conditions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6548–6553 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Spor, A., Koren, O. & Ley, R. Unravelling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9, 279–290 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Adair, K. L. & Douglas, A. E. Making a microbiome: the many determinants of host-associated microbial community composition. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 35, 23–29 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Xin, X.-F. et al. Bacteria establish an aqueous living space in plants crucial for virulence. Nature 539, 524–529 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Andrew, D. R. et al. Abiotic factors shape microbial diversity in Sonoran Desert soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 7527–7537 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fierer, N. & Jackson, R. B. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 626–631 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gunning, T. & Cahill, D. M. A soil-free plant growth system to facilitate analysis of plant pathogen interactions in roots. J. Phytopathol. 157, 497–501 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jackson, M. B. et al. Ventilation in plant tissue cultures and effects of poor aeration on ethylene and carbon dioxide accumulation, oxygen depletion and explant development. Ann. Bot. 67, (1991).

  19. Kloepper, J. W. & Schroth, M. N. Plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria and plant growth under gnotobiotic conditions. Phytopathology 71, 642–644 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Henry, A. et al. An axenic plant culture system for optimal growth in long-term studies. J. Environ. Qual. 35, 590–598 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Carlström, C. I. et al. Synthetic microbiota reveal priority effects and keystone strains in the Arabidopsis phyllosphere. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1445–1454 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Adams, C., Jacobson, A. & Bugbee, B. Ceramic aggregate sorption and desorption chemistry: implications for use as a component of soilless media. J. Plant Nutr. 37, 1345–1357 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Trevors, J. T. Sterilization and inhibition of microbial activity in soil. J. Microbiol. Methods 26, 53–59 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Shaw, L. J., Beaton, Y., Glover, L. A., Killham, K. & Meharg, A. A. Re-inoculation of autoclaved soil as a non-sterile treatment for xenobiotic sorption and biodegradation studies. Appl. Soil Ecol. 11, 217–226 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bank, T. L. et al. Effects of gamma-sterilization on the physico-chemical properties of natural sediments. Chem. Geol. 251, 1–7 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Berns, A. E. et al. Effect of gamma-sterilization and autoclaving on soil organic matter structure as studied by solid state NMR, UV and fluorescence spectroscopy. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 59, 540–550 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wolf, D. C., Dao, T. H., Scott, H. D. & Lavy, T. L. Influence of sterilization methods on selected soil microbiological, physical, and chemical properties. J. Environ. Qual. 18, 39–44 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lotrario, J. B. et al. Effects of sterilization methods on the physical characteristics of soil: implications for sorption isotherm analyses. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 54, 668–675 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Seedorf, H. et al. Bacteria from diverse habitats colonize and compete in the mouse gut. Cell 159, 253–266 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lindsey, B. E. III, Rivero, L., Calhoun, C. S., Grotewold, E. & Brkljacic, J. Standardized method for high-throughput sterilization of Arabidopsis seeds. J. Vis. Exp. https://doi.org/10.3791/56587 (2017).

  31. Clough, S. J. & Bent, A. F. Transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 16, 735–743 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Griffin, A. Bonifer, A. Mundakkal, F. Dion, T. Ulrich, J. Martz and T. Johnson for assistance with FlowPot assembly and workflow optimization, M. A. Hassani and S. Hacquard for critical reading and helpful comments on the manuscript, and B. Kvitko and J. P. Jerome for their contributions to FlowPot growth system development. Figure 2 was partially created with Biorender.com. This project was supported by funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF3037), the National Institutes of Health (GM109928) and the Plant Resilience Institute, Michigan State University. P.S.-L. was supported by the Max Planck Society and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) in the Priority Programme SPP 2125 DECRyPT.

Author information

Author notes

  1. James M. Kremer

    Present address: Joyn Bio, Boston, MA, USA

  2. Reza Sohrabi, Bradley C. Paasch & Sheng Yang He

    Present address: Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

  3. These authors contributed equally: James M. Kremer, Reza Sohrabi, Bradley C. Paasch.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MSU-DOE Plant Research Laboratory, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    James M. Kremer, Reza Sohrabi, Bradley C. Paasch, David Rhodes, Caitlin Thireault & Sheng Yang He

  2. Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    James M. Kremer, James M. Tiedje & Sheng Yang He

  3. Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    James M. Kremer & James M. Tiedje

  4. Plant Resilience Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Reza Sohrabi & Sheng Yang He

  5. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Bradley C. Paasch

  6. Department of Plant Microbe Interactions, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany

    Paul Schulze-Lefert

  7. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Sheng Yang He

Authors
  1. James M. Kremer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reza Sohrabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bradley C. Paasch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Rhodes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caitlin Thireault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul Schulze-Lefert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. James M. Tiedje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sheng Yang He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.M.K., J.T. and S.Y.H. designed the FlowPot experiments. R.S. and S.Y.H. designed the GnotoPot experiments. J.M.K., R.S., B.P., D.R., C.T. and J.F. performed and/or analyzed the experiments. P.S.-L. supervised J.M.K. during FlowPot protocol optimization at Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne. J.M.K., R.S., B.P. and S.Y.H. wrote and finalized the manuscript with input from all coauthors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to James M. Tiedje or Sheng Yang He.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The FlowPot system has the following patent: Methods and apparatus for gnotobiotic plant growth, J. Kremer, J. M. Tiedje, S. Y. He, US Patent 10,645,886 (2020). However, this patent did not influence the writing of this paper.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Protocols thanks Corné Pieterse and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Key references using this protocol

Durán, P. et al. Cell 175, 973–983 (2018): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.020

Chen, T. et al. Nature 580, 653–657 (2020): https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2185-0

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 1

Geographic locations of soils used in this study

Supplementary Table 2

OTU information for the example community profiling workflow used to generate the heatmap in Fig. 6

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kremer, J.M., Sohrabi, R., Paasch, B.C. et al. Peat-based gnotobiotic plant growth systems for Arabidopsis microbiome research. Nat Protoc 16, 2450–2470 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-021-00504-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-021-00504-6

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing