4.4 Article

Genetic diversity of rhizobial populations recovered from three Lotus species cultivated in the infra-arid Tunisian soils

Journal

PROGRESS IN NATURAL SCIENCE-MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 19, Issue 9, Pages 1079-1087

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnsc.2009.02.003

Keywords

Lotus sp.; rep-PCR fingerprinting; PCR-RFLP 16S rRNA; Rhizobia; Arid habitat

Funding

  1. AECI-Spain project [A/9631/07]
  2. Ministry of High Education and Research Development-Tunisia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Eighty-three bacterial strains isolated from root nodules of Lotus creticus, L. pusillus, and L. arabicus grown in infra-arid Tunisian soils were characterized using a polyphasic approach including phenotypic analysis, rep-PCR and PCR-RFLP analyses of the 16S rRNA gene. Phenotypically, all isolates are fast growers the majority of which grow at a pH of between 5.5 and 9. Most of the tested isolates tolerate NaCl concentrations from 1.39% to 3.48%. By rep-PCR. fingerprinting, the genomic similarity varied from 30% to 98%. All tested isolates were clustered into 32 rep-PCR clusters at the similarity level of 80%. The genomic divergence of strains revealed by rep/PCR analysis appeared to be very important since a molecular polymorphism delimiting symbionts for each species of Lotus was identified. With the high-resolution of rep-PCR profiles of the isolates obtained using Pearson's/UPGMA analysis, the isolates were resolved into 60 different profiling groups to undergo 16S ARDRA analyses. The analysis of all restriction fragments from each strain based on the UPGMA algorithm from the combined patterns showed that Lotus isolates are very diverse and that they were affiliated to Sinorhizobium, Rhizobium, and Mesorhizobium genera. (C) 2009 National Natural Science Foundation of China and Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier Limited and Science in China Press. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available