4.5 Article

Genetic divergence among Bradyrhizobium strains nodulating wild and cultivated Kummerowia spp. in China

期刊

SYSTEMATIC AND APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 223-231

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.syapm.2018.10.003

关键词

Bradyrhizobium; Kummerowia; Microevolution; Phylogeny; Recombination; Urban segregation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31500001, 31860001, 31770039]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China [2017MS(LH)0306]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Distribution of rhizobial species is affected by geographical isolation and selected by leguminous hosts, however, little is known about the molecular evolution of rhizobia nodulating the same legume in different eco-environments. In present study, the microevolution of Bradyrhizobium associated with the leguminous grass Kummerowia grown in exurban areas and cultivated in urban areas in China was investigated. Total 14 genospecies, including seven new groups, were identified based on a concatenated sequence analysis of taxonomic markers (SMc00019, truA and thrA) for 94 representative strains. Results demonstrated that lower levels of nucleotide diversity were found in the strains isolated from urban areas compared with those isolated from exurban areas, based on the evolutional analyses of three housekeeping genes (atpD, glnII and recA), two symbiosis-related genes (nodC and nifH), and the taxonomic markers. Moreover, compared with urban areas, gene exchange and recombination occurred more frequently among the genospecies isolated from exurban areas, regardless of the geographical distribution. Finally, the evolutionary lineage of Bradyrhizobium strains isolated from urban areas was independent of that of the strains isolated from exurban areas. In summary, the evolutionary history of Kummerowia bradyrhizobia may have been gradually segregated to different evolutionary lineages, irrespective of distinct biogeography. (C) 2018 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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