4.5 Article

Chitinase genes revealed and compared in bacterial isolates, DNA extracts and a metagenomic library from a phytopathogen-suppressive soil

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 71, 期 2, 页码 197-207

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00801.x

关键词

metagenomic library; chitinase; terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP); Streptomycetes; suppressive soil

资金

  1. EU [QLK 3-2002-2068, KBBE-222625]
  2. US Department of Energy with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  3. Baltic Sea Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil that is suppressive to disease caused by fungal pathogens is an interesting source to target for novel chitinases that might be contributing towards disease suppression. In this study, we screened for chitinase genes, in a phytopathogen-suppressive soil in three ways: (1) from a metagenomic library constructed from microbial cells extracted from soil, (2) from directly extracted DNA and (3) from bacterial isolates with antifungal and chitinase activities. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) of chitinase genes revealed differences in amplified chitinase genes from the metagenomic library and the directly extracted DNA, but approximately 40% of the identified chitinase terminal restriction fragments (TRFs) were found in both sources. All of the chitinase TRFs from the isolates were matched to TRFs in the directly extracted DNA and the metagenomic library. The most abundant chitinase TRF in the soil DNA and the metagenomic library corresponded to the TRF103 of the isolate Streptomyces mutomycini and/or Streptomyces clavifer. There were good matches between T-RFLP profiles of chitinase gene fragments obtained from different sources of DNA. However, there were also differences in both the chitinase and the 16S rRNA gene T-RFLP patterns depending on the source of DNA, emphasizing the lack of complete coverage of the gene diversity by any of the approaches used.

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