4.8 Article

Mutually facilitated dispersal between the nonmotile fungus Aspergillus fumigatus and the swarming bacterium Paenibacillus vortex

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1102097108

Keywords

bacterial-fungal interaction; social motility; spore dispersal; microbial transport

Funding

  1. Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems
  2. Tauber Family Foundation at Tel Aviv University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the heterogeneous environment surrounding plant roots (the rhizosphere), microorganisms both compete and cooperate. Here, we show that two very different inhabitants of the rhizosphere, the nonmotile fungus Aspergillus fumigatus and the swarming bacterium Paenibacillus vortex, can facilitate each other's dispersal. A. fumigatus conidia (nonmotile asexual fungal spores) can be transported by P. vortex swarms over distances of at least 30 cm and at rates of up to 10.8 mm h(-1). Moreover, conidia can be rescued and transported by P. vortex from niches of adverse growth conditions. Potential benefit to the bacteria may be in crossing otherwise impenetrable barriers in the soil: fungal mycelia seem to act as bridges to allow P. vortex to cross air gaps in agar plates. Transport of conidia was inhibited by proteolytic treatment of conidia or the addition of purified P. vortex flagella, suggesting specific contacts between flagella and proteins on the conidial surface. Conidia were transported by P. vortex into locations where antibiotics inhibited bacteria growth, and therefore, growth and sporulation of A. fumigatus were not limited by bacterial competition. Conidia from other fungi, similar in size to those fungi from A. fumigatus, were not transported as efficiently by P. vortex. Conidia from a range of fungi were not transported by another closely related rhizosphere bacterium, Paenibacillus polymyxa, or the more distantly related Proteus mirabilis, despite both being efficient swarmers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available