4.2 Article

Endophytic bacterial diversity decrease in amaranth mutant lines after radiation mutagenesis

Journal

CEREAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 95, Issue 1, Pages 109-116

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cche.10006

Keywords

Amaranthus cruentus L; gamma radiance mutants; metagenomic analysis

Funding

  1. AgroBioTech Research Centre [ITMS 26220220180]
  2. VEGA [2/0041/16, 2/0025/15]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectivesA metagenomic approach was applied to analyze endophytic bacterial diversity changes in Amaranthus cruentus L. subjected to mutagenesis-based breeding. FindingsHigh-throughput sequencing approach of 16S rRNA variability analysis was used for monitoring of the changes of endophytic bacterial diversity in selected M generations and varieties Ficha and Pribina of Amaranthus cruentus L. A total of 15,683,430 clusters were generated in the sequencing and 15,085,381 of them passed filter. Average cluster density was 646 clusters per mm(2). A 95%, 97% of sequences were Q >30. All sequences were classified into the 44 orders that were identified from all the analyzed genotypes of Amaranthus. Metagenomic libraries of Ficha and Pribina showed the similar profiles of identified bacterial orders and that are different from the profiles of M1 and M7 generations after gamma radiance treatment. ConclusionsEndophytic bacteria diversity was higher in the starting variety and final new variety of Amaranthus when comparing to the M generations. Based on the laboratory conditions of the growth of analyzed plant material, it supposes that endophytic bacterial abundance differences are a result of temporary changes in the amount of bacterial endophytes and the metagenomic limitation of their identification. Significance and noveltyMetagenomic analysis provides a sensitive approach that facilitates the study of the endophytic bacteria changes in the leaves of plant after gamma radiation mutagenesis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available