Differences Between Microbial Communities of Pinus Species Having Differing Level of Resistance to the Pine Wood Nematode
Differences Between Microbial Communities of Pinus Species Having Differing Level of Resistance to the Pine Wood Nematode
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00248-021-01907-4
复制
发表时间：
2021-11
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Wei Zhang;Xuan Wang;Yongxia Li;Pengfei Wei;Ningning Sun;X. Wen;Zhenkai Liu;Dongzhen Li;Yuqian Feng;Xing-yao Zhang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wei Zhang;Xuan Wang;Yongxia Li;Pengfei Wei;Ningning Sun;X. Wen;Zhenkai Liu;Dongzhen Li;Yuqian Feng;Xing-yao Zhang
松材线虫（Bursaphelenchus xylophilus）是一种具有破坏性的入侵物种，对入侵地区的大部分本土松树具有破坏性影响，而许多非本土松树对PWN具有抗性。近年来，越来越多的研究集中在微生物群落如何提高宿主对病原体的抵抗力。然而，在不同树种中观察到的微生物群落结构与不同水平的病原菌抗性之间的关系尚不清楚。本文分析了引进的耐药松树湿地松（Pinus elliottii）、美洲松（P. caribaea）和黄松（P. taeda）和本地易感松树健康马尾松（P. massoniana）感染PWN后的细菌和真菌群落。结果显示，共注释6057个细菌otu和3931个真菌otu。不同松树的OTUs分布不同，但共有944个细菌OTUs分布在变形菌门、酸性菌门、厚壁菌门、拟杆菌门和绿菌门，111个真菌OTUs分布在子囊菌门和担子菌门。不同松树间微生物群落多样性差异显著，尤其是抗感松树的细菌群落差异显著，健康松树（包括抗感松树）与枯萎马尾松的真菌群落差异显著。耐药松树中酸热菌属（未鉴定放线菌属）和普氏菌科（α变形菌属）的细菌丰度较高，而Erwinia （γ变形菌属）的细菌丰度较低。健康松林的枝孢菌门（dothideomyctes纲）和eurotiomyctes纲真菌丰度较高，而Graphilbum、Sporothrix、Geosmithia （sordariomyctes纲）和Cryptoporus （agaricomyctes纲和saccharomyctes纲）真菌丰度较低。这些微生物丰度在抗病松树和健康松树之间的差异可能与松树对病原菌的抗性有关，本研究的结果有助于探索微生物防治PWN的研究。
The pine wood nematode (PWN), Bursaphelenchus xylophilus , is a destructive invasive species that exerts devastating effects on most native pines in invaded regions, while many of the non-native pines have resistance to PWN. Recently, increasingly more research is focused on how microbial communities can improve host resistance against pathogens. However, the relationship between the microbial community structures and varying levels of pathogen resistance observed in different pine tree species remains unclear. Here, the bacterial and fungal communities of introduced resistant pines Pinus elliottii , P. caribaea , and P. taeda and native susceptible pines healthy and wilted P. massoniana infected by PWN were analyzed. The results showed that 6057 bacterial and 3931 fungal OTUs were annotated. The pine samples shared 944 bacterial OTUs primarily in the phyla Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Chloroflexi and 111 fungal OTUs primarily in phyla Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, though different pines had unique OTUs. There were significant differences in microbial community diversity between different pines, especially between the bacterial communities of resistant and susceptible pines, and fungal communities between healthy pines (resistant pines included) and the wilted P. massoniana . Resistant pines had a greater abundance of bacteria in the genera Acidothermus (class unidentified_Actinobacteria) and Prevotellaceae (class Alphaproteobacteria), but a lower abundance of Erwinia (class Gammaproteobacteria). Healthy pines had a higher fungal abundance of Cladosporium (class Dothideomycetes) and class Eurotiomycetes, but a lower abundance of Graphilbum , Sporothrix , Geosmithia (class Sordariomycetes), and Cryptoporus (classes Agaricomycetes and Saccharomycetes). These differences in microbial abundance between resistant and healthy pines might be associated with pathogen resistance of the pines, and the results of this study contribute to the studies exploring microbial-based control of PWN.