4.2 Article

Illumina-based analysis of endophytic bacterial diversity of tree peony (Paeonia Sect. Moutan) roots and leaves

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 695-705

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA MICROBIOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjm.2017.02.009

关键词

Paeonia Sect; Moutan; Endophytic bacteria; Biodiversity; Illumina Miseq

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31500008]
  2. Project of Science and Technology Department [152102210328]
  3. Education Department of Henan Province [14A180024]
  4. National Peony Garden of Luoyang city in China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diverse communities of bacteria inhabit plant tissues and those bacteria play a crucial role for plant health and growth. Tree peony (Paeonia Sect. Moutan) is known for its excellent ornamental and medicinal values as Chinese traditional plant, but little is known about its associated bacterial community under natural conditions. To examine how endophytic bacteria in tree peony vary across tissues and cultivars, PCR-based Illumina was applied to reveal the diversity of endophytic bacteria in tree peony. A total of 149,842 sequences and 21,463 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were obtained. The OTU abundance of roots was higher than leaves across other three cultivars except for 'Kinkaku' and 'Luoyanghong'. The community was composed of five dominant groups (Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Acidobacteria and Actinobacteria) in all samples. Endophytic bacteria community structures had changed in leaves and roots. Sequences of Pseudomonas and Enterobacteriaceae were prevalent in root samples, whereas Succinivibrio and Acinetobacter were the dominant genus in leaf samples. Otherwise, the distribution of each dominant genus among the 5 cultivars was either varied. These findings suggested that both plant genotype and tissues contribute to the shaping of the bacterial communities associated with tree peony. (C) 2017 Sociedade Brasileira de Microbiologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.

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

4.2
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