Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 115–119 | Cite as

Metagenomic technologies of detecting genetic resources of microorganisms

  • I. A. Tikhonovich
  • E. A. Ivanova
  • E. V. Pershina
  • E. E. Andronov
Scientific Session of the RAS General Meeting


Although metagenomics is a relatively new scientific trend, it has managed to become popular in many countries, including Russia, over its 20-year history. This division of molecular genetics studies ecosystem- extracted nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), which contain full information about the microbial community of a habitat. Owing to metagenomic methods, soil microbiology has undertaken to study not only known cultivated types of microorganisms but also noncultivated forms, the biological properties of which can be suggested exclusively from the genetic information coded in their DNA. It turns out that such “phantom” types constitute the overwhelming majority within soil microbial communities; to all appearances, they actively participate in ensuring soil fertility, and, hence, in the opinion of the authors of this paper, study of them is topical for both basic research and agricultural practice. The development of metagenomic technologies will help understand biological phenomena determined by close plant–microbe interactions, such as increasing the productivity of agricultural crops and protecting them against phytopathogens. However, the introduction of new methods has always presented difficulties; in metagenomics, they are associated with the acquisition, storage, and bioinformational analysis of a huge array of genetic information.


soil metagenome plant–microbe systems agriculture high-throughput sequencing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    V. Torsvik, J. Goksøyr, and F. L. Daae, “High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 3 (56), 782–787 (1990).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Rosenbaum, R. Knight, and R. L. Leibel, “The gut microbiota in human energy homeostasis and obesity,” Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 26 (9), 493–501 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Yang, M. A. Poles, G. S. Fisch, et al., “HIV-induced immunosuppression is associated with colonization of the proximal gut by environmental bacteria,” AIDS 30 (1), 19–29 (2016).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Gittel, J. Barta, I. Kohoutova, et al., “Distinct microbial communities associated with buried soils in the Siberian tundra,” ISME J. 8 (4), 841–853 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. A. Franzosa, X. C. Morgan, and N. Segata, “Relating the metatranscriptome and metagenome of the human gut,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 22 (111), E2329–E2338 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Zaura, “Next-generation sequencing approaches to understanding the oral microbiome,” Adv. Dent. Res. 2 (24), 81–85 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Carabotti, A. Scirocco, M. Antoniett, et al., “The gut–brain axis: Interactions between enteric microbiota, central and enteric nervous systems,” Annals Gastroenterol. 28, 203–209 (2015).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Rafii, “The role of colonic bacteria in the metabolism of the natural isoflavone daidzin to equol,” Metabolites 1 (5), 56–73 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. A. Tikhonovich and N. A. Provorov, “From plant–microbe interactions to symbiogenetics: A universal paradigm for the interspecies genetic integration,” Ann. Appl. Biol. 154 (3), 341–350 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. A. Tikhonovich and N. A. Provorov, Symbioses of Plants and Microorganisms: Molecular Genetics of Future Agrosystems (Izd. SPbGU, St. Petersburg, 2009) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Kumar, R. C. Dubey, and D. K. Maheshwari, “Bacillus strains isolated from rhizosphere showed plant growth promoting and antagonistic activity against phyto-pathogens,” Microbiol. Res. 167, 493–499 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. R. Kudoyarova, A. I. Melentiev, E. V. Martynenko, et al., “Cytokinin producing bacteria stimulate amino acid deposition by wheat roots,” Plant Physiol. Biochem. 83, 285–291 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. A. Belimov, W. J. Davies, I. C. Dodd, et al., “Rhizosphere bacteria containing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase increase yield of plants grown in drying soil via both local and systemic hormone signaling,” New Phytol. 181, 413–442 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. C. Cohen, C. N. Travaglia, R. Bottini, et al., “Participation of abscisic acid and gibberellins produced by endophytic Azospirillum in the alleviation of drought effects in maize,” Botany 87, 455–462 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Jones, “Food fueled with fungi,” Nature 504, 199 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. I. Safronova, G. Piluzza, S. Bullitta, and A. A. Belimov, “Use of legume–microbe symbioses for phytoremediation of heavy metal polluted soils: Advantages and potential problems (review),” in Handbook for Phytoremediation, Ed. by I. A. Golubev (NOVA Science, New York, 2011), p. 443–469.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. A. Belimov, I. C. Dodd, V. I. Safronova, et al., “The cadmium tolerant pea (Pisum sativum L.) mutant SGECdt is more sensitive to mercury: Assessing plant–water relations,” J. Exp. Bot. 66 (8), 2359–2369 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Lugtenberg and F. Kamilova, “Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria,” Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 63, 541–556 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Rinke, P. Schwientek, and A. Sczyrba, “Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter,” Nature 7459 (499), 431–437 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Bankevich, S. Nurk, D. Antipov, et al., “SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing,” J. Comput. Biol. 5 (19), 455–477 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. A. Tikhonovich
    • 1
  • E. A. Ivanova
    • 1
  • E. V. Pershina
    • 1
  • E. E. Andronov
    • 1
  1. 1.All-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural MicrobiologySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations