基于形态学孢子的特征和分子方法揭示了肾小球菌群落的类似模式。

IF 3.8 2区 生物学 Q2 MYCOLOGY
Noelia Cofré, Gabriel Grilli, Nicolás Marro, Martín Videla, Carlos Urcelay
{"title":"基于形态学孢子的特征和分子方法揭示了肾小球菌群落的类似模式。","authors":"Noelia Cofré, Gabriel Grilli, Nicolás Marro, Martín Videla, Carlos Urcelay","doi":"10.1007/s00572-025-01198-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditionally, characterisation and comparison of AMF communities has been carried out by morphological identification of asexual spores in soil. In recent decades, molecular methods such as soil metabarcoding have become more popular than morphological identification of spores, but direct comparisons of the efficiency of both approaches have been rare. In this study, we compared AMF communities in soil samples from vegetable farms using both morphological and molecular methods (internal transcribed spacer, ITS, markers). In addition, we performed a systematic literature search and retrieved nine studies that analysed AMF communities using both approaches in the same soil samples, mostly in agroecosystems. Our results show that AMF communities determined by morphological spore-based identification are different than those determined by molecular genetic markers, but not as often claimed. In some cases, the morphological spore-based characterisation of spores revealed more diverse glomeromycotan communities. Moreover, in several cases the spore-based methods recovered taxa that the molecular methods did not, while in other cases the opposite was observed. The field and literature-based results of this study indicate that for a comprehensive and exhaustive characterisation of AMF communities it is necessary to combine both approaches. However, if the aim is to compare communities under different environmental conditions, both approaches provide comparable patterns.</p>","PeriodicalId":18965,"journal":{"name":"Mycorrhiza","volume":"35 2","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Morphological spore-based characterisation and molecular approaches reveal comparable patterns in glomeromycotan communities.\",\"authors\":\"Noelia Cofré, Gabriel Grilli, Nicolás Marro, Martín Videla, Carlos Urcelay\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00572-025-01198-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Traditionally, characterisation and comparison of AMF communities has been carried out by morphological identification of asexual spores in soil. In recent decades, molecular methods such as soil metabarcoding have become more popular than morphological identification of spores, but direct comparisons of the efficiency of both approaches have been rare. In this study, we compared AMF communities in soil samples from vegetable farms using both morphological and molecular methods (internal transcribed spacer, ITS, markers). In addition, we performed a systematic literature search and retrieved nine studies that analysed AMF communities using both approaches in the same soil samples, mostly in agroecosystems. Our results show that AMF communities determined by morphological spore-based identification are different than those determined by molecular genetic markers, but not as often claimed. In some cases, the morphological spore-based characterisation of spores revealed more diverse glomeromycotan communities. Moreover, in several cases the spore-based methods recovered taxa that the molecular methods did not, while in other cases the opposite was observed. The field and literature-based results of this study indicate that for a comprehensive and exhaustive characterisation of AMF communities it is necessary to combine both approaches. However, if the aim is to compare communities under different environmental conditions, both approaches provide comparable patterns.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18965,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mycorrhiza\",\"volume\":\"35 2\",\"pages\":\"19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mycorrhiza\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-025-01198-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MYCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mycorrhiza","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-025-01198-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MYCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统上,AMF群落的特征和比较是通过土壤中无性孢子的形态鉴定来进行的。近几十年来,土壤元条形码等分子方法比孢子形态学鉴定更受欢迎,但对这两种方法的效率进行直接比较的情况很少。在这项研究中,我们使用形态学和分子方法(内部转录间隔,ITS,标记)比较了蔬菜农场土壤样品中的AMF群落。此外,我们进行了系统的文献检索,并检索了9项研究,这些研究使用两种方法在相同的土壤样本中分析了AMF群落,主要是在农业生态系统中。我们的研究结果表明,基于形态孢子的鉴定确定的AMF群落与分子遗传标记确定的AMF群落不同,但并不像通常所说的那样。在某些情况下,孢子的形态学特征显示出更多样化的肾小球菌群落。此外,在某些情况下,基于孢子的方法恢复了分子方法没有恢复的分类群,而在其他情况下,观察到相反的情况。本研究的实地和基于文献的结果表明,为了全面和详尽地描述AMF群落,有必要将这两种方法结合起来。但是,如果目的是比较不同环境条件下的社区,两种方法都提供了可比较的模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Morphological spore-based characterisation and molecular approaches reveal comparable patterns in glomeromycotan communities.

Traditionally, characterisation and comparison of AMF communities has been carried out by morphological identification of asexual spores in soil. In recent decades, molecular methods such as soil metabarcoding have become more popular than morphological identification of spores, but direct comparisons of the efficiency of both approaches have been rare. In this study, we compared AMF communities in soil samples from vegetable farms using both morphological and molecular methods (internal transcribed spacer, ITS, markers). In addition, we performed a systematic literature search and retrieved nine studies that analysed AMF communities using both approaches in the same soil samples, mostly in agroecosystems. Our results show that AMF communities determined by morphological spore-based identification are different than those determined by molecular genetic markers, but not as often claimed. In some cases, the morphological spore-based characterisation of spores revealed more diverse glomeromycotan communities. Moreover, in several cases the spore-based methods recovered taxa that the molecular methods did not, while in other cases the opposite was observed. The field and literature-based results of this study indicate that for a comprehensive and exhaustive characterisation of AMF communities it is necessary to combine both approaches. However, if the aim is to compare communities under different environmental conditions, both approaches provide comparable patterns.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mycorrhiza
Mycorrhiza 生物-真菌学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.60%
发文量
40
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mycorrhiza is an international journal devoted to research into mycorrhizas - the widest symbioses in nature, involving plants and a range of soil fungi world-wide. The scope of Mycorrhiza covers all aspects of research into mycorrhizas, including molecular biology of the plants and fungi, fungal systematics, development and structure of mycorrhizas, and effects on plant physiology, productivity, reproduction and disease resistance. The scope also includes interactions between mycorrhizal fungi and other soil organisms and effects of mycorrhizas on plant biodiversity and ecosystem structure. Mycorrhiza contains original papers, short notes and review articles, along with commentaries and news items. It forms a platform for new concepts and discussions, and is a basis for a truly international forum of mycorrhizologists from all over the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信