4.7 Article

Comparison of commonly used primer sets for evaluating arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities: Is there a universal solution?

Journal

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages 482-493

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.08.027

Keywords

Glomeromycota; Primers; rRNA; Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Diversity; 454-Sequencing

Categories

Funding

  1. Czech Science Foundation [P504/10/0781, P504/10/1486, P505/11/1112]
  2. long-term research development project [RVO 67985939]
  3. ESF Doctoral Studies and Internationalization Program DoRa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different primer systems have been developed to characterize arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal (AMF) communities; however, a direct comparison of their specificity, potential to describe diversity and representation of different phylogenetic lineages is lacking. Using seven root samples, we compared four routinely used AMF-specific primer systems for nuclear ribosomal DNA covering i) the partial small subunit (SSU), ii) the partial large subunit (LSU), iii) the partial SSU and internal transcribed spacer (ITS; Redecker) and iv) the partial SSU ITS partial LSU region (Kruger). In addition, a new primer combination v) covering the ITS2 region (ITS2) was included in the comparison. The Kruger primers tended to yield the highest AMF diversity and showed a significantly higher Shannon diversity index than the SSU primers. We found a strong bias towards the Glomeraceae in the LSU and SSU primer systems and differences in the composition of AMF communities based on the Redecker primer system. Our results confirm the crucial role of the choice of target rRNA marker region for analysing AMF communities. We also provide evidence that nested-PCR based data can be interpreted semi-quantitatively and that the extent of observed AMF community overdominance largely depends on the choice of primer. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available