4.6 Article

Microbial community analysis of field-grown soybeans with different nodulation phenotypes

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 74, 期 18, 页码 5704-5709

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00833-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [17658034]
  3. Japanese government scholarship (MEXT)
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17658034] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microorganisms associated with the stems and roots of nonnodulated (Nod(-)), wild-type nodulated (Nod(-)), and hypernodulated (Nod(++)) soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merril] were analyzed by ribosomal intergenic transcribed spacer analysis (RISA) and automated RISA (ARISA). RISA of stem samples detected no bands specific to the nodulation phenotype, whereas RISA of root samples revealed differential bands for the nodulation phenotypes. Pseudomonas fluorescens was exclusively associated with Nod(+) soybean roots. Fusarium solani was stably associated with nodulated (Nod(+) and Nod(++)) roots and less abundant in Nod(-) soybeans, whereas the abundance of basidiomycetes was just the opposite. The phylogenetic analyses suggested that these basidiomycetous fungi might represent a root-associated group in the Auriculariales. Principal-component analysis of the ARISA results showed that there was no clear relationship between nodulation phenotype and bacterial community structure in the stem. In contrast, both the bacterial and fungal community structures in the roots were related to nodulation phenotype. The principal-component analysis further suggested that bacterial community structure in roots could be classified into three groups according to the nodulation phenotype (Nod(-), Nod(+), or Nod(++)). The analysis of root samples indicated that the microbial community in Nod(-) soybeans was more similar to that in Nod(++) soybeans than to that in Nod(+) soybeans.

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