4.5 Article

Impact of multispores in vitro subcultivation of Glomus sp MUCL 43194 (DAOM 197198) on vegetative compatibility and genetic diversity detected by AFLP

期刊

MYCORRHIZA
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 415-425

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00572-009-0295-5

关键词

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF); In vitro culture; Vegetative compatibility; Anastomosis; Genetic drift; AFLP

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT), Mexico [171564/217083]
  2. Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural affairs (OSTC) [BCCM C3/10/003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vegetative compatibility and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) genotyping of in vitro multispores clonal lineages, issued from the same ancestor culture of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal strain MUCL 43194 and subcultured several generations in different locations, was assessed. Vegetative compatibility was studied by confronting the germ tubes of two spores from the same or different clonal lineages and stained with nitrotetrazolium blue-Trypan blue and diamidinophenylindole to detect hyphal fusions and nuclei, respectively. Further AFLP analysis of single spores was performed to assess the genetic profile and Dice similarity between clonal lineages. Germ tubes of spores distant by as many as 69 generations were capable of fusing. The anastomosis frequencies averaged 69% between spores from the same clonal lineage, 57% between spores from different clonal lineages, and 0% between spores belonging to different strains. The AFLP patterns showed similarities averaging 92% within clonal lineages and 86% between clonal lineages. Each spore presented unique genotype and some of them shared more markers with spores from different lineages than within the same lineage. We showed that MUCL 43194 maintained self-recognition for long periods of subcultures in vitro and that spores involved in compatibility tests had different genotypes. Our findings suggest that MUCL 43194 maintains genetic diversity by means of anastomoses.

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