4.3 Article

Bacterial diversity and soil enzyme activity in diseased and disease free apple rhizosphere soils

期刊

ANNALS OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 765-772

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1007/s13213-010-0193-2

关键词

Microbial diversity; 16S rRNA; Amplified rDNA restriction analysis; Rhizosphere

资金

  1. Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology (IHBT, Palampur, India)
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India [SMM 002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A culture-independent survey of the bacterial diversity in rhizosphere soils of diseased (scab) and disease-free apple trees was conducted to assess the role of bacteria in disease suppression. Community DNA was extracted from soil samples and amplified by PCR using primers specific for bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences. Clone libraries were constructed with the PCR products and analysed based on amplified rDNA restriction analysis (ARDRA) patterns. The phylotypes and their frequency distribution in both libraries indicated that the phylotype did not represent a single group. Rarefaction curve, and Shannon and Simpson diversity indices exhibited insignificant diversity differences between the samples in terms of bacterial community composition, whereas more chitinase and beta-1,3 glucanase activities were recorded in samples from disease-free trees than from diseased trees. Based on the operational taxonomic units identified in ARDRA, 80 representative clones were selected from the libraries and partially sequenced. Sequence similarity searches with the resulting sequences identified the dominance of uncultured bacteria to the extent of 70% and 72.5% in disease free and diseased rhizospheres, respectively. The foregoing studies conclude a possible role for enhanced microbial activity in terms of enzyme production in tree (apple) health, although no distinct partitioning of composition or significant diversity of bacterial communities inhabiting diseased and disease-free rhizosphere soils was observed at any given time.

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

4.3
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