4.5 Article

Culture-independent identification of gut bacteria in fourth-instar red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren, larvae

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 20-33

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2007.10.008

关键词

16S rRNA gene; symbiosis; red imported fire ant; Solenopsis invicta; bacteria

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Red imported fire ants (RIFA), Solenopsis invicta Buren, are medical, urban, and agricultural pests from South America. They are successful invaders due to their preference for disturbed habitats, high reproductive rates, and the ability to feed on a wide variety of food items (omnivorous). Fourth-instar larvae are used by the colony to digest solid food and then regurgitate it for consumption by workers and queens. Larvae are an ideal source of investigations of endosymbiotic bacteria possibly involved in nutrient distributions. Our study utilized 16S rDNA sequencing to describe the composition of the bacterial community in fourth-instar ant larvae in order to identify possible endosymbiotic bacteria present therein. The 16S rRNA gene was directly, amplified from mixed-population DNA of whole fire ant larval guts and cloned into Escherichia coli. Bacterial communities from three geographically separated RIFA colonies were examined. Sequenced bacterial clones from guts were determined to be predominantly from the phylum Proteobacteria and the family Enterobacteriaceae. Our results did not detect the presence of endosymbiotic bacteria in the guts of RIFA larvae among the colonies. In addition, minimal species overlap was found when bacterial inventories were compared among colonies. Thus, bacteria coadapted with red imported fire ant larvae were not detected. Identified bacteria were not closely affiliated with endosymbiotic bacteria common in other insect species. Bacteria communities appeared to be unique to each geographical location and were determined by the foods consumed by the ants. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据