4.5 Article

A Promiscuity Locus Confers Lotus burttii Nodulation with Rhizobia from Five Different Genera

期刊

MOLECULAR PLANT-MICROBE INTERACTIONS
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 1006-1017

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-06-22-0124-R

关键词

genetic mapping; host range; Lotus; rhizobia; symbiotic; nitrogen fixation

资金

  1. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF79]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research reveals that Lotus burttii has a higher promiscuity in interactions with rhizobia compared to Lotus japonicus, allowing it to form nodules with rhizobia from five different genera. The mapping of the Gifu/burttii promiscuity quantitative trait locus (QTL) to the same genetic locus regardless of the rhizobial genus suggests a common genetic mechanism for symbiont-range expansion.
Legumes acquire access to atmospheric nitrogen through nitrogen fixation by rhizobia in root nodules. Rhizobia are soil-dwelling bacteria and there is a tremendous diversity of rhizobial species in different habitats. From the legume perspective, host range is a compromise between the ability to colonize new habitats, in which the preferred symbiotic partner may be absent, and guarding against infection by suboptimal nitrogen fixers. Here, we investigate natural variation in rhizobial host range across Lotus species. We find that Lotus burttii is considerably more promiscuous than Lotus japonicus, represented by the Gifu accession, in its interactions with rhizobia. This promiscuity allows Lotus burttii to form nodules with Mesorhizobium, Rhizobium, Sinorhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, and Allorhizobium species that represent five distinct genera. Using recombinant inbred lines, we have mapped the Gifu/burttii promiscuity quantitative trait loci (QTL) to the same genetic locus regardless of rhizobial genus, suggesting a general genetic mechanism for symbiont-range expansion. The Gifu/burttii QTL now provides an opportunity for genetic and mechanistic understanding of promiscuous legume-rhizobia interactions.

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