4.4 Article

Geographic Variation in Bacterial Communities Associated With the Red Turpentine Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 406-414

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/EN09221

关键词

community analysis; microbial diversity; symbiosis; bark beetle

资金

  1. USDA NRI [2008-02438]
  2. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, NSF [DEB0314215, M00702025]
  3. UVV College of Agricultural and Life Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial communities are known to play important roles in insect life histories, yet their consistency or variation across populations is poorly understood. Bacteria associated with the bark beetle Dendroctonus valens Le Conte from eight populations, ranging from Wisconsin to Oregon, were evaluated and compared. We used the culture-independent technique of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis to visualize bacterial diversity, or individual operational taxonomic units (Os), from individual beetles. One-way analysis of similarities was used to test for differences of bacterial communities between sites. Analysis of community profiles showed that individual beetles on average contained 10 OTUs, with frequency of association from 2 to 100% of beetles. OTU sequences most closely matched beta- and gamma-proteobacteria, and one each matched Bacilli and Actinobacteria. Several OTUs were particularly abundant, most notably an Actinobacterium from 100% and two Proteobacteria from 60% of beetles sampled. Some OTUs were similar to previously described bacteria with known biochemical capabilities and ecological functions, suggesting that some bacterial associates of D. valens may contribute to its ability to exploit a resource low in nutrients and high in defensive compounds. There were significant differences of bacterial communities between sites. The strength of these differences was positively correlated with distance between sites, although additional unexplained factors also contribute to the variation.

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

4.4
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