4.6 Article

Isolation and characterization of endophytic colonizing bacteria from agronomic crops and prairie plants

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 5, 页码 2198-2208

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.5.2198-2208.2002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endophytic bacteria reside within plant hosts without causing disease symptoms. In this study, 853 endophytic strains were isolated from aerial tissues of four agronomic crop species and 27 prairie plant species. We determined several phenotypic properties and found approximately equal numbers of gram-negative and gram-positive isolates. In a greenhouse study, 28 of 86 prairie plant endophytes were found to colonize their original hosts at 42 days postinoculation at levels of 3.5 to 7.7 log(10) CFU/g (fresh weight). More comprehensive colonization studies were conducted with 373 corn and sorghum endophytes. In growth room studies, none of the isolates displayed pathogenicity, and 69 of the strains were recovered from corn or sorghum seedlings at levels of 8.3 log(10) CFU/plant or higher. Host range greenhouse studies demonstrated that 26 of 29 endophytes were recoverable from at least one host other than corn and sorghum at levels of up to 5.8 log(10) CFU/g (fresh weight). Long-range dent corn greenhouse studies and field trials with 17 wild-type strains and 14 antibiotic-resistant mutants demonstrated bacterial persistence at significant average colonization levels ranging between 3.4 and 6.1 log(10) CFU/g (fresh weight) up to 78 days postinoculation. Three prairie and three agronomic endophytes exhibiting the most promising levels of colonization and an ability to persist were identified as Cellulomonas, Clavibacter, Curtobacterium, and Microbacterium isolates by 16S rRNA gene sequence, fatty acid, and carbon source utilization analyses. This study defines for the first time the endophytic nature of Microbacterium testaceum. These microorganisms may be useful for biocontrol and other applications.

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