4.7 Article

Frequency and diversity of nitrate reductase genes among nitrate-dissimilating pseudomonas in the rhizosphere of perennial grasses grown in field conditions

Journal

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 63-72

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-003-0228-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A total of 1246 Pseudomonas strains were isolated from the rhizosphere of two perennial grasses (Lolium perenne and Molinia coerulea) with different nitrogen requirements. The plants were grown in their native soil under ambient and elevated atmospheric CO2 content (pCO(2)) at the Swiss FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) facility. Root-, rhizosphere-, and non-rhizospheric soil-associated strains were characterized in terms of their ability to reduce nitrate during an in vitro assay and with respect to the genes encoding the membrane-bound (named NAR) and periplasmic (NAP) nitrate reductases so far described in the genus Pseudomonas. The diversity of corresponding genes was assessed by PCR-RFLP on narG and napA genes, which encode the catalytic subunit of nitrate reductases. The frequency of nitrate-dissimilating strains decreased with root proximity for both plants and was enhanced under elevated pCO(2) in the rhizosphere of L. perenne. NAR (54% of strains) as well as NAP (49%) forms were present in nitrate-reducing strains, 15.5% of the 439 strains tested harbouring both genes. The relative proportions of narG and napA detected in Pseudomonas strains were different according to root proximity and for both pCO(2) treatments: the NAR form was more abundant close to the root surface and for plants grown under elevated pCO(2). Putative denitrifiers harbored mainly the membrane-bound (NAR) form of nitrate reductase. Finally, both narG and napA sequences displayed a high level of diversity. Anyway, this diversity was correlated neither with the root proximity nor with the pCO(2) treatment.

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