4.5 Article

Influence of Environment and Host Plant Genotype on the Structure and Diversity of the Brassica napus Seed Microbiota

期刊

PHYTOBIOMES JOURNAL
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 326-336

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PBIOMES-06-19-0031-R

关键词

bacteriology; Brassica napus; ecosystems; environment; germination; host genotype; microbiome; mycology; seed microbiota; self-pollination

资金

  1. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (Metaomics and Microbial Ecosystems metaprogram, Plant Health and Environment division)
  2. Conseil Regional de Bretagne (ARED)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seeds are involved in the transmission of microorganisms from one plant generation to the next and consequently act as reservoirs for the plant microbiota. The driving processes influencing seed microbiota assemblage have not been yet deciphered because of confounding factors related to environmental location, agricultural practices, and host genotype selection. Nine genotypes were chosen among a large panel of genetically diverse Brassica napus accessions. The taxonomic structure of the seed microbiota was monitored by amplification and subsequent high-throughput sequencing of gyrB and internal transcribed spacer 1 markers for two successive years on seed lots collected from self-pollinated plants. Seed germination capacities were compared between all seed lots. Although harvesting year was the main driver of seed microbiota composition, the host genotype also significantly altered the structure of seed microbial assemblages. The core microbiota of B. napus included nine fungal taxa shared between all the genotypes and years, while no bacterial taxa were conserved across all genotypes and years. The harvesting year had the major effect on seed germination but with some differences between genotypes. The study demonstrated the relative contribution of host- and environmental-filtering on the assemblage of the seed microbiota. It suggested some influence of these assemblages on seed germination.

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