A comparison between fatty acid methyl ester profiling methods (PLFA and EL‐FAME) as soil health indicators

Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiling for characterizing microbial community composition typically is conducted via phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) or ester‐linked fatty acid methyl ester (EL‐FAME) methods. As soil health assessments aim to be utilized across the nation and globe, the robust measu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Soil Science Society of America journal 2020-07, Vol.84 (4), p.1153-1169
Hauptverfasser: Li, Chenhui, Cano, Amanda, Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica, Veum, Kristen S., Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1169
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1153
container_title Soil Science Society of America journal
container_volume 84
creator Li, Chenhui
Cano, Amanda
Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica
Veum, Kristen S.
Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer
description Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiling for characterizing microbial community composition typically is conducted via phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) or ester‐linked fatty acid methyl ester (EL‐FAME) methods. As soil health assessments aim to be utilized across the nation and globe, the robust measurement and interpretation of microbial communities across a range of soils and environments will be necessary. This study compared PLFA and EL‐FAME methods for detecting and interpreting profiles of microbial community composition in croplands across a wide geographic area using a total of 172 soil samples from 14 states representing a wide range of soil properties. Overall, PLFA and EL‐FAME provided comparable biomarkers in terms of microbial community composition. The Spearman's Rank correlation test showed positive correlations (r = 0.37–0.71) between PLFA and EL‐FAME methods for absolute abundance of total FAME and individual microbial groups including fungi (saprophytic fungi [SF], arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [AMF], and general fungi [F]) and all bacterial groups (Gram positive [GMP], Gram negative [GMN], and Actinobacteria). In both methods, a common set of fatty acids were influential in differentiating samples. The main differences in biomarker abundances between the two methods were that fungal and Actinobacteria biomarkers (e.g., 16:1ω5c [AMF], 18:1ω9c [F], 18:3ω6c [F], and 10Me16:0 [Actinobacteria]) were more abundant or critical in EL‐FAME profiling (large variation among soil samples and sensitive to soil properties), but bacterial biomarkers such as i15:0 (GMP), 16:1ω7c (GMN), 18:1ω7c (GMN), and cy19:0ω7c (GMN) were more dominant and responsive to soil properties in PLFA profiling. The practical advantages of EL‐FAME are lower cost and simpler methodology. Although both methods produced similar microbial profile abundances for important microbial markers, PLFA was more sensitive to the wide range of soil chemical properties in this sample set including pH, clay content, soil organic matter, and active carbon.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/saj2.20118
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_saj2_20118</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>SAJ220118</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2738-be129d2827bf50da1bd23badb74ef4da9ff28be52a8b29be01b580212bf93a7e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1OwzAUhC0EEqWw4QReAlKK7dRNsoyqlh8FgQSso-f4mbpK4sq2VGXHETgjJ4G2rFmNNPpmFh8hl5xNOGPiNsBaTATjPD8iIz5NZcJmM35MRiyd8UQWhTwlZyGsGeOyYGxEupI2rtuAt8H1VGHcIvbUQIwDhcZq2mFcDS3FENHTjXfGtrb_2NdOB3r1Ui1LCr2mi-r782tZPi2uKQQanG3pCqGNK2p7bRuIzodzcmKgDXjxl2Pyvly8ze-T6vnuYV5WSSOyNE8UclFokYtMGck0cKVFqkCrbIpmqqEwRuQKpYBciUIh40rmTHChTJFChumY3Bx-G-9C8Gjqjbcd-KHmrN6Jqnei6r2oX5gf4K1tcfiHrF_LR3HY_ADaaGxc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison between fatty acid methyl ester profiling methods (PLFA and EL‐FAME) as soil health indicators</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Li, Chenhui ; Cano, Amanda ; Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica ; Veum, Kristen S. ; Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Chenhui ; Cano, Amanda ; Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica ; Veum, Kristen S. ; Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><description>Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiling for characterizing microbial community composition typically is conducted via phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) or ester‐linked fatty acid methyl ester (EL‐FAME) methods. As soil health assessments aim to be utilized across the nation and globe, the robust measurement and interpretation of microbial communities across a range of soils and environments will be necessary. This study compared PLFA and EL‐FAME methods for detecting and interpreting profiles of microbial community composition in croplands across a wide geographic area using a total of 172 soil samples from 14 states representing a wide range of soil properties. Overall, PLFA and EL‐FAME provided comparable biomarkers in terms of microbial community composition. The Spearman's Rank correlation test showed positive correlations (r = 0.37–0.71) between PLFA and EL‐FAME methods for absolute abundance of total FAME and individual microbial groups including fungi (saprophytic fungi [SF], arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [AMF], and general fungi [F]) and all bacterial groups (Gram positive [GMP], Gram negative [GMN], and Actinobacteria). In both methods, a common set of fatty acids were influential in differentiating samples. The main differences in biomarker abundances between the two methods were that fungal and Actinobacteria biomarkers (e.g., 16:1ω5c [AMF], 18:1ω9c [F], 18:3ω6c [F], and 10Me16:0 [Actinobacteria]) were more abundant or critical in EL‐FAME profiling (large variation among soil samples and sensitive to soil properties), but bacterial biomarkers such as i15:0 (GMP), 16:1ω7c (GMN), 18:1ω7c (GMN), and cy19:0ω7c (GMN) were more dominant and responsive to soil properties in PLFA profiling. The practical advantages of EL‐FAME are lower cost and simpler methodology. Although both methods produced similar microbial profile abundances for important microbial markers, PLFA was more sensitive to the wide range of soil chemical properties in this sample set including pH, clay content, soil organic matter, and active carbon.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-5995</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0661</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/saj2.20118</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Soil Science Society of America journal, 2020-07, Vol.84 (4), p.1153-1169</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. Soil Science Society of America Journal © 2020 Soil Science Society of America</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2738-be129d2827bf50da1bd23badb74ef4da9ff28be52a8b29be01b580212bf93a7e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2738-be129d2827bf50da1bd23badb74ef4da9ff28be52a8b29be01b580212bf93a7e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7203-7142 ; 0000-0003-3158-9869 ; 0000-0002-6492-913X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fsaj2.20118$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fsaj2.20118$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Chenhui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cano, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veum, Kristen S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison between fatty acid methyl ester profiling methods (PLFA and EL‐FAME) as soil health indicators</title><title>Soil Science Society of America journal</title><description>Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiling for characterizing microbial community composition typically is conducted via phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) or ester‐linked fatty acid methyl ester (EL‐FAME) methods. As soil health assessments aim to be utilized across the nation and globe, the robust measurement and interpretation of microbial communities across a range of soils and environments will be necessary. This study compared PLFA and EL‐FAME methods for detecting and interpreting profiles of microbial community composition in croplands across a wide geographic area using a total of 172 soil samples from 14 states representing a wide range of soil properties. Overall, PLFA and EL‐FAME provided comparable biomarkers in terms of microbial community composition. The Spearman's Rank correlation test showed positive correlations (r = 0.37–0.71) between PLFA and EL‐FAME methods for absolute abundance of total FAME and individual microbial groups including fungi (saprophytic fungi [SF], arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [AMF], and general fungi [F]) and all bacterial groups (Gram positive [GMP], Gram negative [GMN], and Actinobacteria). In both methods, a common set of fatty acids were influential in differentiating samples. The main differences in biomarker abundances between the two methods were that fungal and Actinobacteria biomarkers (e.g., 16:1ω5c [AMF], 18:1ω9c [F], 18:3ω6c [F], and 10Me16:0 [Actinobacteria]) were more abundant or critical in EL‐FAME profiling (large variation among soil samples and sensitive to soil properties), but bacterial biomarkers such as i15:0 (GMP), 16:1ω7c (GMN), 18:1ω7c (GMN), and cy19:0ω7c (GMN) were more dominant and responsive to soil properties in PLFA profiling. The practical advantages of EL‐FAME are lower cost and simpler methodology. Although both methods produced similar microbial profile abundances for important microbial markers, PLFA was more sensitive to the wide range of soil chemical properties in this sample set including pH, clay content, soil organic matter, and active carbon.</description><issn>0361-5995</issn><issn>1435-0661</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1OwzAUhC0EEqWw4QReAlKK7dRNsoyqlh8FgQSso-f4mbpK4sq2VGXHETgjJ4G2rFmNNPpmFh8hl5xNOGPiNsBaTATjPD8iIz5NZcJmM35MRiyd8UQWhTwlZyGsGeOyYGxEupI2rtuAt8H1VGHcIvbUQIwDhcZq2mFcDS3FENHTjXfGtrb_2NdOB3r1Ui1LCr2mi-r782tZPi2uKQQanG3pCqGNK2p7bRuIzodzcmKgDXjxl2Pyvly8ze-T6vnuYV5WSSOyNE8UclFokYtMGck0cKVFqkCrbIpmqqEwRuQKpYBciUIh40rmTHChTJFChumY3Bx-G-9C8Gjqjbcd-KHmrN6Jqnei6r2oX5gf4K1tcfiHrF_LR3HY_ADaaGxc</recordid><startdate>202007</startdate><enddate>202007</enddate><creator>Li, Chenhui</creator><creator>Cano, Amanda</creator><creator>Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica</creator><creator>Veum, Kristen S.</creator><creator>Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7203-7142</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3158-9869</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6492-913X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202007</creationdate><title>A comparison between fatty acid methyl ester profiling methods (PLFA and EL‐FAME) as soil health indicators</title><author>Li, Chenhui ; Cano, Amanda ; Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica ; Veum, Kristen S. ; Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2738-be129d2827bf50da1bd23badb74ef4da9ff28be52a8b29be01b580212bf93a7e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Chenhui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cano, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veum, Kristen S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Soil Science Society of America journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Chenhui</au><au>Cano, Amanda</au><au>Acosta‐Martinez, Veronica</au><au>Veum, Kristen S.</au><au>Moore‐Kucera, Jennifer</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison between fatty acid methyl ester profiling methods (PLFA and EL‐FAME) as soil health indicators</atitle><jtitle>Soil Science Society of America journal</jtitle><date>2020-07</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1153</spage><epage>1169</epage><pages>1153-1169</pages><issn>0361-5995</issn><eissn>1435-0661</eissn><abstract>Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiling for characterizing microbial community composition typically is conducted via phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) or ester‐linked fatty acid methyl ester (EL‐FAME) methods. As soil health assessments aim to be utilized across the nation and globe, the robust measurement and interpretation of microbial communities across a range of soils and environments will be necessary. This study compared PLFA and EL‐FAME methods for detecting and interpreting profiles of microbial community composition in croplands across a wide geographic area using a total of 172 soil samples from 14 states representing a wide range of soil properties. Overall, PLFA and EL‐FAME provided comparable biomarkers in terms of microbial community composition. The Spearman's Rank correlation test showed positive correlations (r = 0.37–0.71) between PLFA and EL‐FAME methods for absolute abundance of total FAME and individual microbial groups including fungi (saprophytic fungi [SF], arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [AMF], and general fungi [F]) and all bacterial groups (Gram positive [GMP], Gram negative [GMN], and Actinobacteria). In both methods, a common set of fatty acids were influential in differentiating samples. The main differences in biomarker abundances between the two methods were that fungal and Actinobacteria biomarkers (e.g., 16:1ω5c [AMF], 18:1ω9c [F], 18:3ω6c [F], and 10Me16:0 [Actinobacteria]) were more abundant or critical in EL‐FAME profiling (large variation among soil samples and sensitive to soil properties), but bacterial biomarkers such as i15:0 (GMP), 16:1ω7c (GMN), 18:1ω7c (GMN), and cy19:0ω7c (GMN) were more dominant and responsive to soil properties in PLFA profiling. The practical advantages of EL‐FAME are lower cost and simpler methodology. Although both methods produced similar microbial profile abundances for important microbial markers, PLFA was more sensitive to the wide range of soil chemical properties in this sample set including pH, clay content, soil organic matter, and active carbon.</abstract><doi>10.1002/saj2.20118</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7203-7142</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3158-9869</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6492-913X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-5995
ispartof Soil Science Society of America journal, 2020-07, Vol.84 (4), p.1153-1169
issn 0361-5995
1435-0661
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_saj2_20118
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
title A comparison between fatty acid methyl ester profiling methods (PLFA and EL‐FAME) as soil health indicators
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T22%3A04%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20between%20fatty%20acid%20methyl%20ester%20profiling%20methods%20(PLFA%20and%20EL%E2%80%90FAME)%20as%20soil%20health%20indicators&rft.jtitle=Soil%20Science%20Society%20of%20America%20journal&rft.au=Li,%20Chenhui&rft.date=2020-07&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1153&rft.epage=1169&rft.pages=1153-1169&rft.issn=0361-5995&rft.eissn=1435-0661&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/saj2.20118&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3ESAJ220118%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true