4.6 Article

A Snapshot Picture of the Fungal Composition of Bee Bread in Four Locations in Bulgaria, Differing in Anthropogenic Influence

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof7100845

关键词

bee bread; fungal microbiota; anthropogenic influence; NGS-based metagenomics

资金

  1. BULGARIAN NATIONAL SCIENCE FUND [KP-06-H26/8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a metagenomics snapshot study of the fungal composition of bee bread in four locations in Bulgaria at the end of June 2020, revealing both known beneficial fungal species and previously unreported dominant fungal genera. It was found that anthropogenic pressure can negatively influence the fungal composition of bee bread in terms of pathogenic species presence and beneficial fungi ratio decrease.
Information about the fungal composition of bee bread, and the fermentation processes to which the fungi contribute significantly, is rather scarce or fragmentary. In this study, we performed an NGS-based metagenomics snapshot picture study of the fungal composition of bee bread in four locations in Bulgaria during the most active honeybee foraging period at the end of June 2020. The sampling locations were chosen to differ significantly in climatic conditions, landscape, and anthropogenic pressure, and the Illumina 2 x 250 paired-end reads platform was used for amplicon metagenomics study of the ITS2 region. We found that some of the already reported canonical beneficial core fungal species were present within the studied samples. However, some fungal genera such as Monilinia, Sclerotinia, Golovinomyces, Toxicocladosporium, Pseudopithomyces, Podosphaera and Septoriella were reported for the first time among the dominant genera for a honeybee related product. Anthropogenic pressure negatively influences the fungal composition of the bee bread in two different ways-urban/industrial pressure affects the presence of pathogenic species, while agricultural pressure is reflected in a decrease of the ratio of the beneficial fungi.

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

4.6
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