Next Article in Journal
Metagenomics-Based Proficiency Test of Smoked Salmon Spiked with a Mock Community
Next Article in Special Issue
Bioremediation by Cupriavidus metallidurans Strain MSR33 of Mercury-Polluted Agricultural Soil in a Rotary Drum Bioreactor and Its Effects on Nitrogen Cycle Microorganisms
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics of Borrelia burgdorferi-Specific Antibodies: Seroconversion and Seroreversion between Two Population-Based, Cross-Sectional Surveys among Adults in Germany
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Co-contamination by PAHs and Heavy Metals on Bacterial Communities of Diesel Contaminated Soils of South Shetland Islands, Antarctica
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 8
Issue 12
10.3390/microorganisms8121860
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Application of Erythromycin and/or Raoultella sp. Strain MC3 Alters the Metabolic Activity of Soil Microbial Communities as Revealed by the Community Level Physiological Profiling Approach

by
Mariusz Cycoń
1,*,
Anna Markowicz
2,
Tomasz J. Wąsik
1 and
Zofia Piotrowska-Seget
2
1
Department of Microbiology and Virology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Medical University of Silesia, Jagiellońska 4, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland
2
Institute of Biology, Biotechnology and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia, Jagiellońska 28, 40-032 Katowice, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2020, 8(12), 1860; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms8121860
Submission received: 30 October 2020 / Revised: 17 November 2020 / Accepted: 24 November 2020 / Published: 25 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microorganisms in The Polluted Soil)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Erythromycin (EM), a macrolide antibiotic, by influencing the biodiversity of microorganisms, might change the catabolic activity of the entire soil microbial community. Hence, the goal of this study was to determine the metabolic biodiversity in soil treated with EM (1 and 10 mg/kg soil) using the community-level physiological profiling (CLPP) method during a 90-day experiment. In addition, the effect of soil inoculation with antibiotic-resistant Raoultella sp. strain MC3 on CLPP was evaluated. The resistance and resilience concept as well as multifactorial analysis of data was exploited to interpret the outcomes obtained. EM negatively affected the metabolic microbial activity, as indicated by the values of the CLPP indices, i.e., microbial activity expressed as the average well-color development (AWCD), substrate richness (R), the Shannon–Wiener (H) and evenness (E) indices and the AWCD values for the six groups of carbon substrate present in EcoPlates until 15 days. The introduction of strain MC3 into soil increased the degradative activity of soil microorganisms in comparison with non-inoculated control. In contrast, at the consecutive sampling days, an increase in the values of the CLPP parameters was observed, especially for EM-10 + MC3-treated soil. Considering the average values of the resistance index for all of the measurement days, the resistance of the CLPP indices and the AWCD values for carbon substrate groups were categorized as follows: E > H > R > AWCD and polymers > amino acids > carbohydrates > miscellaneous > amines > carboxylic acids. The obtained results suggest a low level of resistance of soil microorganisms to EM and/or strain MC3 at the beginning of the exposure time, but the microbial community exhibited the ability to recover its initial decrease in catabolic activity over the experimental period. Despite the short-term effects, the balance of the soil ecosystem may be disturbed.

1. Introduction

Antibiotics, due to their common use all over the world, and continuous input and persistence in the environment, have been called emerging pollutants. Nowadays, their concentration in soils ranges from a few ng to as much as 50 mg/kg of soil [1,2]. It has been shown that antibiotics, even at very low concentrations, can generate changes in bacterial genomes and may induce the transfer of genes between individual members of microbial populations [3]. From the ecological point of view, it is important that antibiotics may adversely affect entire microbial communities, which may be illustrated by changes in their biodiversity [4,5] and metabolic activity [6,7,8].
One of the most important groups of antibiotics is macrolides, among which erythromycin (EM) has high consumption worldwide [9,10]. The activity of this antibiotic involves blocking protein biosynthesis by binding to the 50S ribosomal subunit of bacteria and is mainly directed against Gram-positive bacterial pathogens [11,12]. As a consequence of the high consumption of EM, it is being detected at various levels in wastewater and surface waters around the world [13,14,15]. Since the currently used wastewater treatment systems do not guarantee 100% removal of antibiotics, EM present in sewage sludge enters the soil, reaching a concentration of up to 72 µg/kg [16,17,18,19]. However, studies on degradation have shown that EM has relatively low stability in soil matrix, as shown by the DT50 or half-life values, and its fate strongly depends on the type of soil [20,21].
The knowledge about the effects of EM on soil microorganisms is very limited. In our previous experiments [22], which aimed to study the effect of EM (Figure 1A) and Raoultella sp. strain MC3 (Figure 1B) on the genetic structure of the soil microbial community, a decrease in the biodiversity of the bacterial population up to 60 days after antibiotic application was observed. In contrast, no negative effect of strain MC3 introduced into soils on the biodiversity indices of soil microbial communities was found. However, the changes in the bacterial diversity in EM-contaminated soils may potentially disturb the functioning of soil microorganisms and thus impact the rate of ecologically important soil processes. Therefore, due to the lack of such reports, there is a need to check if the application of EM and/or Raoultella sp. into the soil may change the functional biodiversity of soil microorganisms. To attain such data, the community-level physiological profile (CLPP) approach and the Biolog®Eco™ plates were used to evaluate the catabolic potential of soil microorganisms. In addition, the resistance and resilience concept and multifactorial analysis were used to evaluate the ability of a soil microbial community to maintain its activity and functional diversity in EM-contaminated soils and/or those inoculated with Raoultella sp. The purpose of this study was also to indicate the usefulness of the CLPP method in measuring microbial activity, and the necessity to include it in the methodological framework for the monitoring of soil environment contaminated with antibiotics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design and Analyses

The experiment was carried out in sandy loam soil [22], characterized by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) methods [23]. The experiment consisted of three replicates for the control and soil contaminated with two concentrations of EM (i.e., 1 and 10 mg/kg soil) and/or inoculation with the Raoultella sp. strain MC3. This strain was isolated from raw sewage using a medium supplemented with EM [22,24]. The 16S RNA gene sequencing and API 20E biochemical (bioMérieux SA, Marcy l’Etoile, France) tests identified this strain as Raoultella sp. [22]. The strain was designated as MC3 and its 16S rRNA gene sequence was submitted to GenBank under accession number MH333101 (Figure 1B). The resistance of Raoultella sp. strain MC3 to erythromycin, vancomycin, tetracycline and clindamycin determined by the MIC showed the values above 256 μg/mL [22]. In the 90-day experiment, on 1, 15, 30, 60 and 90 days, the functional diversity of the soil microbial community referred to as CLPP was assessed using the Biolog EcoPlateTM (Biolog Inc., Hayward, CA, USA) [25], as detailed in the previous paper [26]. The experiment treatments and the list of parameters measured are depicted in Figure 2.

2.2. Analysis of the Data

The data obtained from the absorbance measurements were used to determine the CLPP indices, i.e., microbial activity expressed as the average well-color development (AWCD), substrate richness (R), and the Shannon–Wiener (H) and evenness (E) indices. The AWCD values were determined using Equation (1) [26]
AWCD = ∑ODi/31
where ODi is the optical density value from each well.
The H and E values were calculated using Equations (2) and (3), respectively [26],
H = −∑pi (lnpi)
E = H/Hmax= H/lnR
where pi is the ratio of the activity on each substrate (ODi) to the sum of the activities on all of the substrates (∑ODi), and R is the number of substrates metabolized.
The changes in the resistance (RS) and resilience (RL) of microbial communities in the soils treated with EM and/or strain MC3 at consecutive sampling days of the experiment were calculated using an approach proposed by Orwin and Wardle [27]. The RS index was calculated using Equation (4)
RS(t0) = 1 − 2|D0| / (C0 + |D0|)
where D0 is the difference between the control (C0) and the disturbed soil (P0) at the end of the disturbance (t0). The RL index was calculated using Equation (5)
RL(tx) = 2|D0|/(|D0| + |Dx|) − 1
where D0 is as above and Dx is the difference between the nontreated control (Cx) and the exposed soil (Px) at the time point (tx) chosen to measure the resilience.
The data obtained for the CLPP indices (i.e., AWCD, RS, H and E), and the AWCD values for the six carbon substrate groups (i.e., amines, amino acids, carbohydrates, carboxylic acids, miscellaneous and polymers), were analyzed using a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess the level of variability (%) related to the factors tested, i.e., the concentration of EM, inoculation of soil with MC3 strain and the sampling time. The data related to the RS and RL indices were subjected to two-way and one-way ANOVAs in order to examine the differences among sampling time and differences among the different treatments, respectively. The statistical significance of the differences (p < 0.05) was assessed using the least significant differences (LSD) test. A principal component analysis (PCA) of the data for the CLPPs and the AWCD data for the carbon substrate groups was carried out for all the sampling days and separately for each sampling day. The principal component (PC) scores from the PCA were subjected to a three-way and two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for the first and second PCA sets, respectively. All of the statistical analyses were done with The Statistica v. 13.0 PL software package.

3. Results and Discussion

Antibiotics present in the environments, due to their antimicrobial activity, may negatively influence the diversity and activity of the soil bacterial community. It has been shown that many antibiotics may decrease the overall microbial activity [26,28,29,30,31,32] and inhibit some specific process such as denitrification, nitrification, iron reduction or cumulative respiration [33,34,35].
Currently, one of the methods most commonly used to assess the functional diversity of soil microorganisms is the physiological community-level physiological profiling with the use of 96-well EcoPlatesTM. Although CLPP does not represent the catabolic potential of the entire microbial population and limits the analysis mainly to fast-growing bacteria, it has been successfully applied to prove the negative impact of antibiotics on the metabolic activity of soil microorganisms [31,32,33].
The results showed that the soil inoculation with EM and/or strain MC3 altered the catabolic activity of the examined microbial community. Both doses of EM led to a significant decline (p < 0.05) in the values of all measured CLPP indices, i.e., AWCD (Figure 3A), R (Figure 3B), H (Figure 3C) and E (Figure 3D) till 15 days. In contrast, catabolic activity in the soil inoculated with the MC3 strain was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than in the control soil. In contrast, at the following sampling days, an increase in the values of the measured parameters was observed, especially for EM-10 + MC3-treated soil (Figure 3).
In general, the results of statistical analysis showed that the values of determined CLPP indices were influenced by all the analyzed factors, i.e., strain MC3, concentration of EM and incubation time, with the highest share of time in the observed variability. In addition, the interactions between the factors tested had a significant impact (Table 1). A short-term negative effect on the catabolic activity of soil microorganisms has also been noted for other antibiotics. For example, Fang et al. [36] found that AWCD and CLPP indices decreased significantly up to 35 days after chlortetracycline application. A slight inhibition on the microbial activity (expressed as the H index) in soil was observed along a gradient of oxytetracycline concentration (1–300 mg/kg soil). In contrast, a marked decline in functional diversity and AWCD values with increasing concentrations of oxytetracycline was reported by Kong et al. [31]. Antibiotics from the sulfonamide group, such as sulfamethoxazole and sulfamethazine, can also alter the activity of microbial populations; however, only short-term detrimental effects were observed [33,37]. Furthermore, sulfadimethoxine or chlortetracycline did not affect the CLPP indices including AWCD, whereas other antibiotic monensin contributed to an increase in the value of the H index [28].
The AWCD values demonstrated that EM and/or strain MC3 changed the pattern of carbon source utilization during the experiment (Figure 4). The introduction of EM, especially at a higher dosage, caused a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in the AWCD values in the case of utilization of amines, amino acids, carbohydrates and miscellaneous until 15 days and for carboxylic acids and polymers until 30 days. Furthermore, over the same time period, for soil inoculated only with strain MC3, AWCD values increased generally for all carbon substrate groups (Figure 4). On the next measurement day, i.e., on day 60, in EM and MC3 treatments, a significant increase in the catabolic activity of the analyzed microbial community for amines, carbohydrates, carboxylic acids and miscellaneous was found. Finally, at the end of the experiment, there were generally no differences between contaminated and/or inoculated soils compared to the non-treated soil (Figure 4).
In general, the results of statistical analysis demonstrated that the AWCD values of all substrate groups were affected by all analyzed factors, i.e., strain MC3, concentration of EM and time of the experiment. In addition, the interactions between above-mentioned factors had a significant impact (Table 2). In other studies, changes in the preferential degradation by microorganisms of some of the carbon substrates were observed over the course of an experimental period. For example, Xu et al. [4] revealed that sulfadiazine at a higher concentration contributed to a decrease in the utilization rates of carboxylic acids, amino acids, carbohydrates, and aromatic acids. Liu et al. [38] observed a short-term decrease in the usage of carbohydrates and miscellaneous by the microbial community in sulfamethoxazole-treated soil. In contrast, the doxycycline generally contributed to a stimulation of the substrate utilization [30].
The observed alterations in soil microbial functional diversity were also confirmed by PCA. The PCA plots generated for the CLPP indices (Figure 5) and the AWCD values for the carbon substrate groups (Figure 6) including all of the measurement days (Figure 5A,B) and individual sampling days (Figure 6A,B) demonstrated scattering of the samples mainly along the PC1 axis, and the three factors tested, i.e., strain MC3, the concentration of EM and time, significantly contributed to a pattern of the variability obtained (Table 3 and Table 4). Generally, an evident influence of EM concentration and/or strain MC3 on the determined parameters was observed until 30 days.
In this study, it was noted that, regardless of whether EM was used alone or in combination with strain MC3, the antibiotic contributed to environmental stress conditions, resulting in changes in the functional diversity and catabolic activity of the analyzed microbial community. The loss of the ability of the soil microbial community to utilize selected carbon substrates at the beginning of the experiment could be associated with the negative effect of EM on specific enzymes produced by microorganisms. Since EM is active mainly against Gram-positive bacteria, some members of this group of bacteria could have been killed or their metabolic activity inhibited. As a consequence of this phenomenon, catabolic activity and functional diversity significantly decreased. However, the negative effect of the antibiotic in combination with the MC3 strain observed at the beginning of the experiment was smaller compared to that observed for soil contaminated with only EM. This result suggests that part of the negative antibiotic effect was abolished by inoculation with the MC3 strain. This finding is also confirmed by the results obtained for the soil inoculated with strain MC3 alone.
Higher values of the measured parameters suggest that the introduced bacterial strain had the ability to survive in new conditions and increased the catabolic potential of the microbial community. Many studies on the degradation of pollutants in the soil environment showed synergy between inoculated strains and natural soil microflora, which resulted in the accelerated degradation of pollutants [39,40,41]. However, the lack of any effect of the introduction of bacterial strains into the soil was also observed. For example, the study by Cycoń et al. [8] showed that the antibiotic-resistant strain Citrobacter freundii did not affect the catabolic activity or functional diversity of soil microorganisms, regardless of whether it was introduced alone or in combination with vancomycin. This phenomenon may be related to the survivability of inoculants in the soil environment, which is often a foreign environment for them [39]. Soils are very complex ecosystems, and many factors, both biotic and abiotic, may determine the survival of inoculants. In addition, there may be competition between the natural soil microflora and the introduced strains of microorganisms [42]. The phenomenon of inhibition from the production of various substances by soil microorganisms that limit the activity of inoculants is also of great importance [43].
After the initial inhibition caused by EM, the values of the measured parameters increased at the subsequent sampling days. This effect could be related to the use of EM as a source of carbon and energy by selected microorganisms capable of degrading the antibiotic introduced into soil. This phenomenon could result in an increase in the number of degrading microorganisms and, hence, an increase in enzyme production. In contrast, the negative effect of EM could have been masked by the increased activity of other microorganisms capable of surviving in the presence of an antibiotic and/or using compounds released from the cells of killed microorganisms [8,44,45]. The observed effect could also be related to EM degradation in the soil. Studies on degradation have shown that EM has relatively low stability under soil conditions, as evidenced by the DT50 or half-life values of a few to several dozen days depending on the type of soil [20,21]. In addition, as has been shown by the studies of Dunkle et al. [46] and Wei et al. [47], the degradation of EM to L-cladinose, D-desosamine and a 14-member lactone ring resulted in the loss of antibacterial properties.
The observed changes in the catabolic activity of the microbial community were reflected in its resistance to stress factors (Table 5 and Table 6). In general, the results of the two-way ANOVA showed a significant impact of strain MC3, concentration of EM and time of the experiment on the resistance of the CLPP indices and the metabolic activity expressed as the AWCD for the carbon substrate groups (Table 7). Considering the average values of the resistance index for all of the measuring days, the resistance of the CLPP indices and the AWCD values for carbon substrate groups were categorized as follows: E (0.798) > H (0.744) > R (0.652) > AWCD (0.635) and polymers (0.790) > amino acids (0.647) > carbohydrates (0.604) > miscellaneous (0.545) > amines (0.509) > carboxylic acids (0.388). An analysis of the RL index for measured parameters demonstrated differences in its value for individual treatments at the end of the experiment (day 90). However, the RL index was found to be positive for most of the treated soils (Table 8).
According to the interpretation proposed by Orwin and Wardle [27], RS and RL indices may have values between −1 and 1. A value of +1 for the RS index shows the highest resistance and no effect of factors influencing the soil, while lower values show stronger effects (less resistance) related to either stimulation or inhibition. In the case of the RL index, a value of +1 at the sampling time shows maximal resilience, while lower values show a slower recovery rate. The results obtained generally suggest a low initial resistance of microorganisms to the introduction of EM and/or strain MC3, but the microbial community was resilient in the long term. Similar phenomena were noted by Cycoń et al. [9] and Baćmaga et al. [48] studying the effect of other antibiotics, i.e., vancomycin and the pesticide azoxystrobin, respectively, on the soil metabolic activity. Our results suggest that the properties and internal structure of the soil microbial community are a key factor responsible for maintaining the soil equilibrium. Despite the initial perturbations caused by stress factors, the proper balance may be restored [49,50,51]. However, the composition of the rebuilt soil community may be different to the structure of the initial community exposed to stress conditions [49,51,52].

4. Conclusions

It has been found out that regardless of whether EM was introduced into soil alone or in combination with Raoultella sp. strain MC3, it exerted stress effect on microorganisms at the beginning of the experiment, resulting in changes in the functional diversity of the soil microbial community. Interestingly, strain MC3, introduced into EM-contaminated soil, compensated for the negative effect caused by the antibiotic. Higher values of the measured parameters obtained for the soil inoculated with only the bacterial strain suggest that this strain had the ability to survive and increased the activity of soil microorganisms. It is important that after the initial inhibition of metabolic potential, its increase was noted for the subsequent measurement days. This effect could be related to an increase in the number of microorganisms that degrade antibiotics and/or masking of the effect of EM through increased activity of other microorganisms using compounds released from the cells of dead microorganisms. In addition, the degradation of EM and its loss of antibacterial properties could have great significance. In general, the results obtained suggest a low level of resistance of soil microorganisms to EM and/or strain MC3 at the beginning of the exposure time, but the microbial community had the ability to recover its initial catabolic activity over the experimental period. Despite the short-term effects, the balance of the soil ecosystem may be disturbed. The CLPP approach used in this study has shown that it may give valuable information on the metabolic activity of soil microorganisms, and despite some limitations, as in any method, it should be used for the monitoring of the soil environment affected by antibiotics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C.; methodology, M.C. and A.M.; software, M.C.; validation, M.C. and A.M.; formal analysis, M.C. and A.M.; investigation, M.C., A.M., T.J.W. and Z.P.-S.; resources, M.C., A.M. and T.J.W; data curation, M.C., A.M., T.J.W. and Z.P.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C., T.J.W. and Z.P.-S.; writing—review and editing, M.C. and Z.P.-S. visualisation, M.C.; supervision, M.C.; project administration, M.C. and T.J.W; and funding acquisition, M.C. and T.J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was performed within the framework of the project No. KNW-1-1-073/N/7/L funded by the Medical University of Silesia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest and the funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Devries, S.L.; Zhang, P. Antibiotics and the Terrestrial Nitrogen Cycle: A Review. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2016, 2, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Pan, M.; Chu, L. Leaching behavior of veterinary antibiotics in animal manure-applied soils. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 579, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Grenni, P.; Ancona, V.; Caracciolo, A.B. Ecological effects of antibiotics on natural ecosystems: A review. Microchem. J. 2018, 136, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xu, Y.; Yu, W.; Ma, Q.; Wang, J.; Zhou, H.; Jiang, C. The combined effect of sulfadiazine and copper on soil microbial activity and community structure. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 134, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Orlewska, K.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z.; Cycoń, M. Use of the PCR-DGGE Method for the Analysis of the Bacterial Community Structure in Soil Treated with the Cephalosporin Antibiotic Cefuroxime and/or Inoculated with a Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas putida Strain MC1. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Cui, H.; Wang, S.; Fu, J.; Zhou, Z.-Q.; Zhang, N.; Guo, L. Influence of ciprofloxacin on microbial community structure and function in soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2014, 50, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, B.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Gao, M. Effects of chlortetracycline on soil microbial communities: Comparisons of enzyme activities to the functional diversity via Biolog EcoPlatesTM. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2015, 68, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cycoń, M.; Orlewska, K.; Markowicz, A.; Żmijowska, A.; Smoleń-Dzirba, J.; Bratosiewicz-Wąsik, J.; Wąsik, T.J.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Vancomycin and/or Multidrug-Resistant Citrobacter Freundii Altered the Metabolic Pattern of Soil Microbial Community. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. On behalf of the ESAC Project Group; Adriaenssens, N.; Coenen, S.; Versporten, A.; Muller, A.; Minalu, G.; Faes, C.; Vankerckhoven, V.; Aerts, M.; Hens, N.; et al. European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC): Outpatient macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin (MLS) use in Europe (1997–2009). J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66, vi37–vi45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Versporten, A.; Zarb, P.; Caniaux, I.; Gros, M.-F.; Drapier, N.; Miller, M.; Jarlier, V.; Nathwani, D.; Goossens, H.; Koraqi, A.; et al. Antimicrobial consumption and resistance in adult hospital inpatients in 53 countries: Results of an internet-based global point prevalence survey. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e619–e629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Liang, J.-H.; Han, X. Structure-activity relationships and mechanism of action of macrolides derived from erythromycin as antibacterial agents. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2013, 13, 3131–3164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Jelić, D.; Antolović, R. From Erythromycin to Azithromycin and New Potential Ribosome-Binding Antimicrobials. Antibiotics 2016, 5, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. He, S.; Dong, D.; Zhang, X.; Sun, C.; Wang, C.; Hua, X.; Zhang, L.; Guo, Z. Occurrence and ecological risk assessment of 22 emerging contaminants in the Jilin Songhua River (Northeast China). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 24003–24012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kafaei, R.; Papari, F.; Seyedabadi, M.; Sahebi, S.; Tahmasebi, R.; Ahmadi, M.; Sorial, G.; Asgari, G.; Ramavandi, B. Occurrence, distribution, and potential sources of antibiotics pollution in the water-sediment of the northern coastline of the Persian Gulf, Iran. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 627, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mirzaei, R.; Yunesian, M.; Nasseri, S.; Gholami, M.; Jalilzadeh, E.; Shoeibi, S.; Mesdaghinia, A. Occurrence and fate of most prescribed antibiotics in different water environments of Tehran, Iran. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shi, Y.; Gao, L.; Li, W.; Liu, J.; Cai, Y. Investigation of Fluoroquinolones, Sulfonamides and Macrolides in Long-Term Wastewater Irrigation Soil in Tianjin, China. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2012, 89, 857–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bin Ho, Y.; Zakaria, M.P.; Latif, P.A.; Saari, N. Occurrence of veterinary antibiotics and progesterone in broiler manure and agricultural soil in Malaysia. Sci. Total. Environ. 2014, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pan, M.; Wong, C.K.C.; Chu, L.M. Distribution of Antibiotics in Wastewater-Irrigated Soils and Their Accumulation in Vegetable Crops in the Pearl River Delta, Southern China. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 11062–11069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gao, L.; Shi, Y.; Lihong, G.; Liu, J.; Cai, Y. Occurrence and distribution of antibiotics in urban soil in Beijing and Shanghai, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 11360–11371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schlüsener, M.P.; Bester, K. Persistence of antibiotics such as macrolides, tiamulin and salinomycin in soil. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 143, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Topp, E.; Renaud, J.; Sumarah, M.W.; Sabourin, L. Reduced persistence of the macrolide antibiotics erythromycin, clarithromycin and azithromycin in agricultural soil following several years of exposure in the field. Sci. Total. Environ. 2016, 562, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Orlewska, K.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z.; Bratosiewicz-Wąsik, J.; Cycoń, M. Characterization of bacterial diversity in soil contaminated with the macrolide antibiotic erythromycin and/or inoculated with a multidrug-resistant Raoultella sp. strain using the PCR-DGGE approach. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 126, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cycoń, M.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Biochemical and microbial soil functioning after application of the insecticide imidacloprid. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 27, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cycoń, M.; Borymski, S.; Orlewska, K.; Wąsik, T.J.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. An Analysis of the Effects of Vancomycin and/or Vancomycin-Resistant Citrobacter freundii Exposure on the Microbial Community Structure in Soil. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Insam, H. A New Set of Substrates Proposed for Community Characterization in Environmental Samples. In Microbial Communities; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1997; pp. 259–260. [Google Scholar]
  26. Orlewska, K.; Markowicz, A.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z.; Smoleń-Dzirba, J.; Cycoń, M. Functional Diversity of Soil Microbial Communities in Response to the Application of Cefuroxime and/or Antibiotic-Resistant Pseudomonas putida Strain MC1. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Orwin, K.; Wardle, D. New indices for quantifying the resistance and resilience of soil biota to exogenous disturbances. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 1907–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Toth, J.D.; Feng, Y.; Dou, Z. Veterinary antibiotics at environmentally relevant concentrations inhibit soil iron reduction and nitrification. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 2470–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ma, T.; Pan, X.; Chen, L.; Liu, W.; Christie, P.; Luo, Y.; Wu, L. Effects of different concentrations and application frequencies of oxytetracycline on soil enzyme activities and microbial community diversity. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2016, 76, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, J.; Lin, H.; Sun, W.; Xia, Y.; Ma, J.; Fu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, H.; Qian, M. Variations in the fate and biological effects of sulfamethoxazole, norfloxacin and doxycycline in different vegetable-soil systems following manure application. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 304, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kong, W.-D.; Zhu, Y.; Fu, B.-J.; Marschner, P.; He, J.-Z. The veterinary antibiotic oxytetracycline and Cu influence functional diversity of the soil microbial community. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 143, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, W.; Pan, N.; Chen, W.; Jiao, W.; Wang, M. Effect of veterinary oxytetracycline on functional diversity of soil microbial community. Plant Soil Environ. 2012, 58, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Pino-Otín, M.R.; Muñiz, S.; Val, J.; Navarro, E. Effects of 18 pharmaceuticals on the physiological diversity of edaphic microorganisms. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 595, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Semedo, M.; Song, B.; Sparrer, T.; Phillips, R.L. Antibiotic Effects on Microbial Communities Responsible for Denitrification and N2O Production in Grassland Soils. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Molaei, A.; Lakzian, A.; Haghnia, G.; Astaraei, A.; Rasouli-Sadaghiani, M.; Ceccherini, M.T.; Datta, R. Assessment of some cultural experimental methods to study the effects of antibiotics on microbial activities in a soil: An incubation study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Fang, H.; Han, L.; Cui, Y.; Xue, Y.; Cai, L.; Yu, Y. Changes in soil microbial community structure and function associated with degradation and resistance of carbendazim and chlortetracycline during repeated treatments. Sci. Total. Environ. 2016, 572, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Demoling, L.A.; Bååth, E.; Greve, G.; Wouterse, M.; Schmitt, H. Effects of sulfamethoxazole on soil microbial communities after adding substrate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 840–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, F.; Wu, J.; Ying, G.-G.; Luo, Z.; Feng, H. Changes in functional diversity of soil microbial community with addition of antibiotics sulfamethoxazole and chlortetracycline. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 95, 1615–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cycoń, M.; Żmijowska, A.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Enhancement of deltamethrin degradation by soil bioaugmentation with two different strains of Serratia marcescens. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 11, 1305–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Hirth, N.; Topp, E.; Dörfler, U.; Stupperich, E.; Munch, J.C.; Schroll, R. An effective bioremediation approach for enhanced microbial degradation of the veterinary antibiotic sulfamethazine in an agricultural soil. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2016, 3, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Zhang, H.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wu, L.; Liu, X.; Luo, Y. Residues and risks of veterinary antibiotics in protected vegetable soils following application of different manures. Chemosphere 2016, 152, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, S.; Chang, C.; Deng, Y.; An, S.; Dong, Y.H.; Zhou, J.; Hu, M.; Zhong, G.; Zhang, L.-H. Fenpropathrin Biodegradation Pathway inBacillussp. DG-02 and Its Potential for Bioremediation of Pyrethroid-Contaminated Soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 2147–2157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Karpouzas, D.G.; Walker, A. Factors influencing the ability of Pseudomonas putida epI to degrade ethoprophos in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 1753–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ding, G.-C.; Radl, V.; Schloter-Hai, B.; Jechalke, S.; Heuer, H.; Smalla, K.; Schloter, M. Dynamics of Soil Bacterial Communities in Response to Repeated Application of Manure Containing Sulfadiazine. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Chessa, L.; Pusino, A.; Garau, G.; Mangia, N.P.; Pinna, M.V. Soil microbial response to tetracycline in two different soils amended with cow manure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 23, 5807–5817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dunkle, J.A.; Xiong, L.; Mankin, A.S.; Cate, J.H. Structures of the Escherichia coli ribosome with antibiotics bound near the peptidyl transferase center explain spectra of drug action. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 17152–17157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Wei, L.; Qin, K.; Zhao, N.; Noguera, D.R.; Qiu, W.; Zhao, Q.; Kong, X.; Zhang, W.; Kabutey, F.T. Transformation of erythromycin during secondary effluent soil aquifer recharging: Removal contribution and degradation path. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 51, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Baćmaga, M.; Kucharski, J.; Wyszkowska, J. Microbial and enzymatic activity of soil contaminated with azoxystrobin. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Allison, S.D.; Martiny, J.B.H. Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 11512–11519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Song, H.-S.; Renslow, R.S.; Fredrickson, J.K.; Lindemann, S.R. Integrating ecological and engineering concepts of resilience in microbial communities. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Schäffer, A.; Amelung, W.; Hollert, H.; Kaestner, M.; Kandeler, E.; Kruse, J.; Miltner, A.; Ottermanns, R.; Pagel, H.; Peth, S.; et al. The impact of chemical pollution on the resilience of soils under multiple stresses: A conceptual framework for future research. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 1076–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ludwig, M.; Wilmes, P.; Schrader, S. Measuring soil sustainability via soil resilience. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 626, 1484–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Microorganisms 08 01860 g001 550
Figure 1. Chemical structure of erythromycin (A) and phylogenetic tree of Raoultella sp. strain MC3 (B).
Figure 1. Chemical structure of erythromycin (A) and phylogenetic tree of Raoultella sp. strain MC3 (B).
Microorganisms 08 01860 g001
Microorganisms 08 01860 g002 550
Figure 2. Experimental design and analyses performed. C = control. EM1 = erythromycin (1 mg/kg soil). EM10 = erythromycin (10 mg/kg soil). R = Raoultella sp. strain MC3. CLPP = community-level physiological profile. AWCD = average well-color development. RS = resistance. RL = resilience. LSD = least significant differences. ANOVA = analysis of variance. MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance. PCA = principal component analysis.
Figure 2. Experimental design and analyses performed. C = control. EM1 = erythromycin (1 mg/kg soil). EM10 = erythromycin (10 mg/kg soil). R = Raoultella sp. strain MC3. CLPP = community-level physiological profile. AWCD = average well-color development. RS = resistance. RL = resilience. LSD = least significant differences. ANOVA = analysis of variance. MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance. PCA = principal component analysis.
Microorganisms 08 01860 g002
Microorganisms 08 01860 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of EM and/or strain MC3 on the values of the CLPP indices, i.e., AWCD (A), Rs (B), H (C) and E (D). The data presented are the means of three replicates with standard deviations. Significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05) between treatments at the same sampling time and between sampling times within the same treatments are denoted with different lower and uppercase letters, respectively. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Figure 3. Effect of EM and/or strain MC3 on the values of the CLPP indices, i.e., AWCD (A), Rs (B), H (C) and E (D). The data presented are the means of three replicates with standard deviations. Significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05) between treatments at the same sampling time and between sampling times within the same treatments are denoted with different lower and uppercase letters, respectively. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Microorganisms 08 01860 g003
Microorganisms 08 01860 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of EM and/or strain MC3 on the AWCD values of carbon substrate groups, i.e., amines (A), amino acids (B), carbohydrates (C), carboxylic acids (D), miscellaneous (E) and polymers (F). The data presented are the means of three replicates with standard deviations. Significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05) between treatments at the same sampling time and between sampling times within the same treatments are denoted with different lower and uppercase letters, respectively. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Figure 4. Effect of EM and/or strain MC3 on the AWCD values of carbon substrate groups, i.e., amines (A), amino acids (B), carbohydrates (C), carboxylic acids (D), miscellaneous (E) and polymers (F). The data presented are the means of three replicates with standard deviations. Significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05) between treatments at the same sampling time and between sampling times within the same treatments are denoted with different lower and uppercase letters, respectively. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Microorganisms 08 01860 g004
Microorganisms 08 01860 g005 550
Figure 5. The PCA plots for the CLPP indices (A) and carbon substrate groups (B) generated for all the days of the experiment. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Figure 5. The PCA plots for the CLPP indices (A) and carbon substrate groups (B) generated for all the days of the experiment. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Microorganisms 08 01860 g005
Microorganisms 08 01860 g006 550
Figure 6. The PCA plots for the CLPP indices (A) and carbon substrate groups (B) generated for each sampling day of the experiment. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Figure 6. The PCA plots for the CLPP indices (A) and carbon substrate groups (B) generated for each sampling day of the experiment. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Microorganisms 08 01860 g006
Table
Table 1. Results of the three-way ANOVA for the CLPP indices.
Table 1. Results of the three-way ANOVA for the CLPP indices.
SVAWCDRHE
VEpVEpVEpVEp
S<10.004 **<10.4032<0.001 ***3<0.001 ***
C11<0.001 ***2<0.001 ***5<0.001 ***8<0.001 ***
T3<0.001 ***38<0.001 ***40<0.001 ***25<0.001 ***
S × C<10.020 *<10.586<10.063<10.211
S × T<1<0.001 ***3<0.001 ***10.001 **40.005 **
C × T55<0.001 ***47<0.001 ***46<0.001 ***36<0.001 ***
S × C × T<10.86620.029 *20.002 **9<0.001 ***
SV: source of variation, S: strain, C: concentration, T: time, AWCD: average well-color development, R: substrate richness, H: Shannon–Wiener index, E: evenness index, VE: variance explained (%). Asterisks represent the significance level (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001).
Table
Table 2. Results of the three-way ANOVA for the carbon substrate groups.
Table 2. Results of the three-way ANOVA for the carbon substrate groups.
SVAminesAmino AcidsCarbohydrates
VEpVEpVEp
S70<0.001 ***<10.084<1<0.001 ***
C<1<0.001 ***8<0.001 ***9<0.001 ***
T2<0.001 ***41<0.001 ***53<0.001 ***
S × C13<0.001 ***<1<0.001 ***<10.077
S × T<1<0.001 ***2<0.001 ***1<0.001 ***
C × T<1<0.001 ***47<0.001 ***36<0.001 ***
S × C × T14<0.001 ***<1<0.001 ***<10.006 **
SVCarboxylic AcidsMiscellaneousPolymers
VEpVEpVEp
S<10.001 **<10.002 **<10.013 *
C6<0.001 ***18<0.001 ***11<0.001 ***
T44<0.001 ***9<0.001 ***26<0.001 ***
S × C<10.025 *<1<0.001 ***<10.001 **
S × T<1<0.001 ***<10.0801<0.001 ***
C × T47<0.001 ***72<0.001 ***58<0.001 ***
S × C × T1<0.001 ***<1<0.001 ***10.002 **
SV: source of variation, S: strain, C: concentration, T: time, AWCD: average well-color development, R: substrate richness, H: Shannon–Wiener index, E: evenness index, VE: variance explained (%). Asterisks represent the significance level (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001).
Table
Table 3. Results of the three-way MANOVA for the PC 1 and PC 2 based on the CLPP indices and carbon substrate groups.
Table 3. Results of the three-way MANOVA for the PC 1 and PC 2 based on the CLPP indices and carbon substrate groups.
SVCLPP IndicesCarbon Substrate Groups
PC 1PC 2PC 1PC 2
VEpVEpVEpVEp
S1<0.001 ***10.072<10.003 **<1<0.001 ***
C8<0.001 ***40.005 **11<0.001 ***2<0.001 ***
T35<0.001 ***25<0.001 ***34<0.001 ***46<0.001 ***
S × C<10.268<10.456<10.045 *<1<0.001 ***
S × T10.003 **70.001 **<1<0.001 ***4<0.001 ***
C × T50<0.001 ***32<0.001 ***5<0.001 ***41<0.001 ***
S × C × T10.005 **100.002 **<10.4464<0.001 ***
SV: source of variation, S: strain, C: concentration, T: time, VE: variance explained (%). Asterisks represent the significance level (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001).
Table
Table 4. Results of the two-way MANOVA for the PC1 and PC2 based on the CLPP indices and carbon substrate groups.
Table 4. Results of the two-way MANOVA for the PC1 and PC2 based on the CLPP indices and carbon substrate groups.
DaySVCLPP IndicesCarbon Substrate Groups
PC 1PC 2PC 1PC 2
VEpVEpVEpVEp
1S8<0.001 ***<10.75820.032 *<10.942
C86<0.001 ***100.37994<0.001 ***450.002 **
S × C30.014 *350.051<10.955310.007 **
15S50.009 **<10.8493<0.001 ***40<0.001 ***
C86<0.001 ***40.72596<0.001 ***33<0.001 ***
S × C40.057260.154<10.08022<0.001 ***
30S11<0.001 ***270.007 **<10.50070.033 *
C81<0.001 ***390.007 **98<0.001 ***330.001 **
S × C30.06630.569<10.19447<0.001 ***
60S<10.59250.201<10.438130.027 *
C92<0.001 ***<10.9598<0.001 ***470.002 **
S × C<10.90766<0.001 ***30.214160.050 *
90S<10.33290.114<10.51459<0.001 ***
C93<0.001 ***460.010 *99<0.001 ***10.210
S × C10.33460.435<10.78036<0.001 ***
SV: source of variation, S: strain, C: concentration, VE: variance explained (%). Asterisks represent the significance level (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001).
Table
Table 5. The resistance (RS) index for the CLPP indices.
Table 5. The resistance (RS) index for the CLPP indices.
ParameterDayTreatment x ¯
EM1EM10REM1+REM10+R
AWCD10.650Bab0.237Cc0.617BCb0.889Aa0.399BCbc0.558B
150.817ABa0.386BCb0.703ABa0.382Bb0.788Aa0.615B
300.688ABab0.774Aa0.438Cbc0.403Bc0.273Cc0.515B
600.925Aa0.770Aa0.907Aa0.859Aa0.670ABa0.826A
900.838ABa0.592ABb0.431Cb0.863Aa0.574ABb0.659B
Substrate richness (R)10.619Cb0.283Ec0.621Bb0.888Aa0.581Bb0.598B
150.656Ca0.523Db0.689Ba0.527Bb0.297Dc0.538B
300.814Ba0.780Ba0.522Cb0.442Cc0.407Cc0.593B
600.933Aa0.641Cb0.493Cc0.552Bbc0.573Bb0.638B
900.892ABa0.962Aa0.947Aa0.892Aa0.771Ab0.893A
Shannon-Wiener index (H)10.687Ba0.426Cc0.671Cab0.722BCa0.581Db0.617B
150.572Cbc0.487Cc0.563Dbc0.704Ca0.624CDab0.590B
300.929Aa0.903Aab0.771Bc0.816Bbc0.885Aab0.861A
600.935Aa0.917Aa0.691BCb0.752BCb0.688BCb0.797A
900.973Aa0.689Bb0.918Aa0.951Aa0.749Bb0.856A
Evenness (E)10.801Ba0.676Bb0.784BCab0.747Bab0.691Bab0.740B
150.659Ca0.607Bab0.716Ca0.603Cab0.497Cb0.616C
300.889ABab0.769ABb0.928Aa0.938Aa0.906Aa0.886A
600.957Aa0.847Aab0.858ABab0.902Aab0.826Ab0.878A
900.938Aab0.717Bc0.908ABab0.964Aa0.824Abc0.870A
The data presented are the means of three replicates. Significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05) between treatments at the same sampling time and between sampling times within the same treatments are marked with different lower and uppercase letters, respectively. A significant stimulation or inhibition in comparison to the control soil is marked in green or gray, respectively. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Table
Table 6. The resistance (RS) index for the carbon substrate groups.
Table 6. The resistance (RS) index for the carbon substrate groups.
ParameterDayTreatment x ¯
EM1EM10REM1+REM10+R
AWCD
amines		10.757Ba0.281Cc0.414Cb0.282Cc0.224Dc0.392B
150.344Cb0.080Dc0.086Dc0.666Aa0.389Cb0.313B
300.893Aa0.408Bd0.614Bc0.542Bc0.734Ab0.638A
600.941Aa0.491Bb0.340Cc0.350Cc0.205Dd0.465B
900.891Aa0.876Aa0.854Aa0.543Bb0.519Bb0.736A
AWCD
amino acids		10.749Ba0.161Cb−0.194Cc−0.222Cc0.219Cb0.143C
150.897Aa0.472Bb0.493Bb0.539Bb0.904Aa0.661B
300.932Aa0.565Bb0.530Bb0.551Bb0.324Bc0.580B
600.863Ab0.889Aab0.885Aab0.963Aa0.976Aa0.915A
900.886Ab0.984Aa0.928Aab0.956Aab0.925Aab0.936A
AWCD
carbohydrates		10.348Bb0.137Bc−0.068Dd−0.014Dcd0.738ABa0.228D
150.957Aa0.263Bd0.440Cbc0.329Cc0.582Bb0.514C
300.945Aa0.978Aa0.484BCb0.444Cb0.416Cb0.653BC
600.879Aa0.945Aa0.617Bb0.625Bb0.599Bb0.733AB
900.907Aa0.893Aa0.853Aa0.950Aa0.864Aa0.893A
AWCD
carboxylic acids		10.512CDab0.057Cd0.128Ccd0.709Ba0.343Bbc0.350C
150.596Cb0.333Bc0.596Bb0.640Bb0.930Aa0.619B
300.890Aa0.285BCb−0.301Dc−0.421Cc−0.529Dc−0.015C
600.306Db0.777Aa−0.244Dc−0.318Cc−0.246Cc0.055C
900.901Aa0.950Aa0.950Aa0.952Aa0.909Aa0.933A
AWCD
miscellaneous		10.548Cb0.190Cc0.934ABa0.498Cb0.156Cc0.465AB
150.604Cc0.358Bd0.961Aa0.834Ab0.662Ac0.684A
300.731Bb0.484Ac0.883ABa0.693Bb0.269Bd0.612AB
600.923Aa0.113Cc0.774Cb0.886Aa0.050Dc0.550AB
900.876Aa−0.220Dc0.853BCa0.739Bb−0.189Ec0.412B
AWCD
polymers		10.906Aab0.488Bd0.980Aa0.860Bb0.700Bc0.787AB
150.942Aa0.433BCc0.875Bab0.821Bb0.266Cd0.668B
300.887Aa0.336Cc0.778Bb0.975Aa0.380Cc0.671B
600.935Aa0.881Aa0.960ABa0.913ABa0.917Aa0.921A
900.948Aa0.870Aa0.939ABa0.910ABa0.848Aa0.903A
The data presented are the means of three replicates. Significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05) between treatments at the same sampling time and between sampling times within the same treatments are marked with different lower and uppercase letters, respectively. A significant stimulation or inhibition in comparison to the control soil is marked in green or gray, respectively. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Table
Table 7. Results of the two-way ANOVA for the resistance (RS) indices.
Table 7. Results of the two-way ANOVA for the resistance (RS) indices.
SV/ParameterAWCDRHEAmines
VEpVEpVEpVEpVEp
Tr58<0.01 **50<0.01 **73<0.001 ***130.019 *37<0.01 **
T16<0.01 **19<0.01 **3<0.001 ***50.30615<0.01 **
Tr × T26<0.01 **28<0.01 **21<0.001 ***300.06046<0.01 **
SV/ParameterAmino acidsCarbohydratesCarboxylic AcidsMiscellaneousPolymers
VEpVEpVEpVEpVEp
Tr36<0.01 **26<0.01 **60<0.01 **47<0.001 ***51<0.01 **
T34<0.01 **35<0.01 **14<0.01 **10<0.001 ***15<0.01 **
Tr × T30<0.01 **37<0.01 **24<0.01 **36<0.001 ***33<0.01 **
SV: source of variation, Tr: treatment, T: time, AWCD: average well-color development, R: substrate richness, H: Shannon-Wiener index, E: evenness index, VE: variance explained (%). Asterisks represent the significance level (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001).
Table
Table 8. Values of the resilience (RL) index for measured parameters obtained at the end of the experiment.
Table 8. Values of the resilience (RL) index for measured parameters obtained at the end of the experiment.
ParameterTreatment x ¯
EM1EM10REM1+REM10+R
AWCD0.294a0.338a−0.325b−0.148ab0.140ab0.060
Substrate richness (RS)0.702b0.950a0.841ab0.190d0.450c0.627
Shannon−Wiener index (H)0.881a0.391b0.649ab0.750a0.324b0.599
Evenness (E)0.614ab0.044c0.441ab0.791a0.291bc0.436
AWCD amines 0.266ab0.673a0.506ab0.073b0.104ab0.324
AWCD amino acids −0.486c0.841a0.654a0.777a0.323b0.422
AWCD carbohydrates 0.457a0.565a0.607a0.849a−0.350b0.426
AWCD carboxylic acids 0.516b0.890a0.872a0.521b0.658ab0.691
AWCD miscellaneous 0.776a−0.087b−0.192b0.602a−0.020b0.216
AWCD polymers 0.462a0.775a−0.248b0.469a0.572a0.406
The data presented are the means of three replicates. Significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05) between the values of each parameter are marked with different letters. The treatment abbreviations are explained in Figure 2.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cycoń, M.; Markowicz, A.; Wąsik, T.J.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Application of Erythromycin and/or Raoultella sp. Strain MC3 Alters the Metabolic Activity of Soil Microbial Communities as Revealed by the Community Level Physiological Profiling Approach. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1860. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms8121860

AMA Style

Cycoń M, Markowicz A, Wąsik TJ, Piotrowska-Seget Z. Application of Erythromycin and/or Raoultella sp. Strain MC3 Alters the Metabolic Activity of Soil Microbial Communities as Revealed by the Community Level Physiological Profiling Approach. Microorganisms. 2020; 8(12):1860. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms8121860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cycoń, Mariusz, Anna Markowicz, Tomasz J. Wąsik, and Zofia Piotrowska-Seget. 2020. "Application of Erythromycin and/or Raoultella sp. Strain MC3 Alters the Metabolic Activity of Soil Microbial Communities as Revealed by the Community Level Physiological Profiling Approach" Microorganisms 8, no. 12: 1860. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms8121860

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop