Literature DB >> 24031988

Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria isolated from the leaves of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris).

Leonardo Emanuel de Oliveira Costa1, Marisa Vieira de Queiroz, Arnaldo Chaer Borges, Celia Alencar de Moraes, Elza Fernandes de Araújo.   

Abstract

The common bean is one of the most important legumes in the human diet, but little is known about the endophytic bacteria associated with the leaves of this plant. The objective of this study was to characterize the culturable endophytic bacteria of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) leaves from three different cultivars (Vermelhinho, Talismã, and Ouro Negro) grown under the same field conditions. The density of endophytic populations varied from 4.5 x 10(2) to 2.8 x 10(3) CFU g(-1) of fresh weight. Of the 158 total isolates, 36.7% belonged to the Proteobacteria, 32.9% to Firmicutes, 29.7% to Actinobacteria, and 0.6% to Bacteroidetes. The three P. vulgaris cultivars showed class distribution differences among Actinobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria and Bacilli. Based on 16S rDNA sequences, 23 different genera were isolated comprising bacteria commonly associated with soil and plants. The genera Bacillus, Delftia, Methylobacterium, Microbacterium, Paenibacillus, Staphylococcus and Stenotrophomonas were isolated from all three cultivars. To access and compare the community structure, diversity indices were calculated. The isolates from the Talismã cultivar were less diverse than the isolates derived from the other two cultivars. The results of this work indicate that the cultivar of the plant may contribute to the structure of the endophytic community associated with the common bean. This is the first report of endophytic bacteria from the leaves of P. vulgaris cultivars. Future studies will determine the potential application of these isolates in biological control, growth promotion and enzyme production for biotechnology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  16S rDNA; Endophytic bacteria; Phaseolus vulgaris; common bean; diversity indices.

Year:  2012        PMID: 24031988      PMCID: PMC3769033          DOI: 10.1590/S1517-838220120004000041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Braz J Microbiol        ISSN: 1517-8382            Impact factor:   2.476


INTRODUCTION

The phyllosphere is the habitat for a large diversity of microorganisms. Although bacteria are the predominant microorganisms present in phyllospheres, others such as filamentous fungi are also important members. Phyllosphere bacteria may be found on the surface of plants (epiphytes) as well as in the interior of plant tissues (endophytes) (3, 32, 40). Endophytic bacteria can be defined as those that can be isolated from healthy, superficially disinfected plant tissues and do not cause any damage to the host plant (15, 17). The population density of endophytic bacteria can vary from 102 to 109 (6, 12, 25, 39, 44) and depends on many factors, including the plant being studied, the part under analysis (31, 46), the developmental stage of the plant (17, 44), the plant cultivar (genotype) (15, 44) and the interaction with other organisms, as well as other environmental-related factors (17). The interaction between endophytic bacteria and their host plants is not completely understood. However, many isolates seem to have beneficial effects on their hosts (58). These beneficial effects include promoting host growth and biological control of phytopathogens (17, 21). The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is one of the most important legumes in the human diet and serves as a significant source of proteins (10). The relationship between Rhizobium and other nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the root nodules of beans has been extensively studied (13, 37, 38). Recently, López-López et al. (34) reported the isolation of endophytic bacteria from the seeds and roots of the common bean. However, little is known about endophytic bacteria inhabiting the aerial tissues of the common bean. Therefore, the objective of this study was to isolate the culturable, endophytic bacteria from the leaves of three different common bean cultivars growing in field conditions and characterize the community of culturable bacteria. To our knowledge, this is the first report on endophytic bacteria from the leaves of different cultivars of the common bean.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant materials

Samples were collected from three common bean cultivars during the winter of 2007: Talismã (TAL), Ouro Negro (ONG), and Vermelhinho (VER). The cultivars were planted in an experimental field in the town of Coimbra – MG (altitude: 690 m; latitude: 20º 45’ S; longitude 42º 51’ W). During sowing, 350 kg ha-1 of the 8–28–16 NPK (percentage of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) formula was applied, and 25 days after their emergence, the plants were covered in 150 kg ha-1 of ammonium sulfate. The leaves of the superior portion of the plant (20 cm above the soil) were collected in the vegetative phase 45 days after sowing.

Sample preparation and bacterial isolation

The collected leaves were washed in running water and those with superficial injury that was visible to the naked eye were excluded. Each isolation procedure was done in triplicate for each cultivar. Each triplicate was composed of approximately 2 g of leaves belonging to two different plants being evaluated, totaling six plants per cultivar. The disinfection and isolation were performed according to Araujo et al. (1) with minor modifications. Briefly, the leaves were disinfected superficially through the following protocol: 70% alcohol for 1 min, sodium hypochlorite (2.5% Cl-) for 4 min, ethanol for 30 s, and finally 3 rinses in sterile, distilled water. To confirm the disinfection protocol, aliquots of the sterile water used in the final rinse were plated in 10% TSA (1.5 g/L of triptone, 0.5 g/L of soy peptone, 1.5 g/L of NaCl, 15 g/L of agar, pH 7.3) at 28 ºC for 15 days and the plates are examined for the presence or absence of microorganismal growth colony. Initially, the leaves were ground with 6 mL of aqueous solution (0.9 % NaCl) using a sterile mortar and pestle. The tissue extract was subsequently incubated at 28 ºC for 3 hours to allow the complete release of endophytic microorganisms from the host tissue. For the isolation of endophytic bacteria, the tissue extract was diluted in an aqueous solution (0.9 % NaCl) and plated on five 10% TSA plates for each dilution (10–1 and 10–2). The plates were incubated for up to 15 days at 28ºC. Colonies were selected on days 2, 5, 10, and 15 of incubation and purified in 10% TSA. For each petri dish evaluated, the colonies were selected according to their time of growth and morphology (color, size, shape). After 15 days of incubation, all of the colonies were counted and expressed as CFU per gram of fresh tissue.

Identification and phylogenetic analysis of endophytic bacteria

DNA from each isolate was extracted using the following protocol: 1.5 ml of a 48-hour bacterial culture was centrifuged for 5 minutes at 14000 g and resuspended in 1 ml of TE buffer (mM Tris-HCl, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0), centrifuged, resuspended in 500 µl of TE buffer and finally adding 0.5 g of glass pearls (0.1 mm in diameter) (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) and 15 µl of 20% SDS. The cells were then homogenized for 30 s in a vortex mixer (AP56 – Phoenix), 500 µl of buffered phenol was added, and the solution was mixed and centrifuged for 5 min at 14000 g. The aqueous phase was extracted once with phenol-chloroform (1:1) and once more with chloroform. Following the extraction of the aqueous phase, 20 µl of 5M NaCl was added, the DNA was precipitated with isopropanol (5 min at room temperature) and collected by centrifugation for 10 min at 14000 g. The DNA pellet was washed with 70% ethanol, air dried and resuspended in 30 µl of autoclaved, ultrapure water. The amplification of 16S rDNA was carried out in a reaction with a final volume of 25 µl containing 1 µl (0.5–10 ng) of total DNA, 2.5 µl (0.2 µM) of the P027F primer (5’-GAGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTAG-3’), 2.5 µl (0.2 µM) of the 1378R primer (5’-CGGTGTGTACSSGGCCCGGGAACG-3’), 1.6 µl (200 µM) of each dNTP, 2.5 µl of 5x IB buffer (Phoneutria; Belo Horizonte, Brazil); 1µl (1U) of Taq DNA polymerase (Phoneutria; Belo Horizonte, Brazil), and 2.5 µl (25 µg) of BSA (Promega). A negative control (PCR mix without DNA) was included in all PCR experiments. The PCR reaction conditions were as follows: 94ºC for 4 min, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94ºC for 30 s, annealing at 63ºC for 1 min and extension at 72ºC for 1 min, before a final extension at 72ºC for 7 min. The PCR products were purified and sequenced by Macrogen Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) using an ABI3730 XL automatic DNA sequencer and the primers P027F and 1378R. The identification of the isolates was performed using the Ribosomal Database Project (14, 61) and BLAST (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi) in NCBI. We used the Sequence Match application and BLAST to verify the similarity of experimental sequences with the reference sequences in the databases (14) and classified them at the genus level. The DNA sequences of 34 reference strains (“type strain”), 2 strains obtained from the Ribosomal Database Project, and 34 representative strains from experimental isolates were aligned using the Ribosomal Database Project. Phylogenetic trees were constructed using the Neighbor-Joining (NJ) algorithm in MEGA version 4 (56), the Maximum Parsimony (MP) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) algorithm in Paup* (52), and the Bayesian Analysis (BA) algorithm in MrBayes 3.1 (23). The Neighbor Joining method was corrected by the Tamura-Nei multiple base substitution model (55) and by the GAMA distribution (0.4899) established by Modeltest 3.7. The parameters for Maximum Likelihood (GTR+I+G) were selected by AIC in Modeltest 3.7 (45). The Bayesian parameters (GTR+I+G) were selected by AIC in MrModeltest 2.3 (42). A total of 1000 replications were used for the bootstrap tests of the NJ and MP methods, while the ML test had 100 replications. The MB was performed in two independent runs with four Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). A total of 10,000,000 generations were run, with trees being sampled every 1000 generations and the first 1,000,000 trees being discarded. Non-rooted trees were calculated using the 16S rDNA sequence of Methanocaldococcus jannaschii DSM 2661 as an outgroup. The 16S rDNA sequences of each isolate were deposited in the NCBI GENBANK database under the accession numbers HM355592 to HM355749.

Diversity indices

The diversity indices were calculated in the PAST program version 2.01(20), and the expected number of genotypes in the R program version 2.11.1 (47) using the Vegan library (43).

RESULTS

Endophytic bacteria isolation and identification

The density of endophytic populations recovered in 10% Endophytic bacteria from bean TSA medium varied from 4.5 x 102 to 2.8 x 103 CFU g-1 per fresh weight. A total of 158 (about 40 % of the total counted) isolates was obtained, of which 31.01% (49) were isolated from the Talismã cultivar, 37.34% (59) from the Ouro Negro cultivar and 31.65% (50) from the Vermelhinho cultivar (Table 1).
Table 1

Endophytic isolates obtained from three Phaseolus vulgariscultivars.

Identified taxumCultivar*
TALONGVER
Actinobacteria25139
Actinobacteria (class)25139
Agromyces (A. mediolanus; Agromycessp.)023
Dietzia (D. cinnamea)001
Frigoribacterium(F. faeni)030
Kocuria(K. palustris)100
Microbacterium(M. foliorum; M. phyllosphaerae; Microbacterium sp.; M. testaceum)2075
Micrococcus(M luteus)400
Rhodococcus(R. erythropolis)010
Bacteroidetes001
Sphingobacteria001
Sphingobacterium(S. multivorum) Firmicutes001
Firmicutes112318
Bacilli112218
Bacillus(B. amyloliquefaciens; B. bataviensis; B. muralis; B. niacini, Bacillus sp.; B. subtilis; B. thuringiensis)735
Brevibacillus(B. agri)011
Lysinibacillus (Lysinibacillus sphaericus)001
Paenibacillus(P. cineris; P. lautus; Paenibacillus sp.)121
Sporosarcina(S. aquimarina; Sporosarcina sp.)011
Staphylococcus(S. caprae; S. epidermidis; S. kloosii; S. saprophyticus; Staphylococcus sp.; S. warneri;)3169
Proteobacteria132322
Alphaproteobacteria5147
Brevundimonas(B. vesicularis)100
Methylobacterium(M. populi)387
Rhizobium(R. larrymoorei)140
Sphingomonas(S. dokdonensis; S. sanguinis)020
Betaproteobacteria121
Delftia(D. tsuruhatensis)121
Gammaproteobacteria7714
Acinetobacter(A. radioresistens; Acinetobacter sp.)002
Enterobacter(E. asburiae; E. hormaechei)400
Stenotrophomonas(S. maltophilia; Stenotrophomonas sp.)2710
Pseudomonas(P. aeruginosa)102
Total495950

TAL = Talismã; ONG = Ouro Negro; VER = Vermelhinho.

Endophytic isolates obtained from three Phaseolus vulgariscultivars. TAL = Talismã; ONG = Ouro Negro; VER = Vermelhinho.

Identification and phylogenetic analyses of endophytic bacteria

Sequencing of 16S rDNA was performed in all 158 isolates. Based on the nucleotide sequences each of the isolates was assigned to 23 different genera (Table 1). In terms of phylum, most isolates belonged to Proteobacteria (36.7% of the total number of isolates), followed by Firmicutes (32.9%) and lastly Actinobacteria (29.7%). Isolates from phylum Bacteroidetes comprised only 0.6% of the total and only a single isolate was found from the Sphingobacteria (Sphingobacteriaceae) of the genus Sphingobacterium. The highest number of isolates belonged to the Bacilli class (32.9%), comprised of bacteria from the families Staphylococcaceae (17.7%), Bacillaceae (10.1%), Paenibacillaceae (3.8%) and Planococcaceae (1.3%). The second most prevalent class in isolates was Actinobacteria (29.7%), which includes Microbacteriaceae (24.7%), Micrococcaceae (3.1%), Nocardiaceae (0.6%) and Dietziaceae (0.6%). Among the isolates identified as Proteobacteria, the dominant class in the isolate collection was Gammaproteobacteria (17.71%), with isolates belonging to the families Xanthomonadaceae (12.0%), Enterobacteriaceae (2.5%), Pseudomonadaceae (1.9%) and two (1.3%) isolates from the family Moraxellaceae. Isolates from the Alphaproteobacteria (16.5%) comprised representatives from the families Methylobacteriaceae (11.4%), Rhizobiaceae (3.2%), Sphingomonadaceae (1.3%) and one isolate from the family Caulobacteraceae. Betaproteobacteria (2.5%) contains only members from the family Comamonadaceae (2.5%). The relative composition of the bacterial isolates by cultivars is shown in Figure 1 according to class. Differences in the proportions of the classes Actinobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria and Bacilli were observed between the three P. vulgaris cultivars. Sphingobacteria were isolated only from the Vermelhinho cultivar, which also exhibited differences in the proportion of isolates belonging to Gammaproteobacteria compared to isolates from the other two cultivars. The proportion of Betaproteobacteria was the same in all cultivars and all isolates of this class belonged to the genus Delftia.
Figure 1

Bacterial class distribution of the culturable endophytic isolates obtained from three Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars: Talismã cultivar (TAL); Ouro Negro cultivar (ONG); Vermelhinho cultivar (VER)

Bacterial class distribution of the culturable endophytic isolates obtained from three Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars: Talismã cultivar (TAL); Ouro Negro cultivar (ONG); Vermelhinho cultivar (VER) Partial 16S rDNA gene sequences (approximately 1200 bp) from the isolates were used together with sequences taken from the Ribosomal Database Project for construction of phylogenetic trees using four different methods (Neighbor-Joining, Maximum Parsimony, Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian). The tree obtained by the Bayesian method is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2

Phylogenetic tree showing the relationship between the 16S rDNA gene sequences from representative isolates of endophytic bacteria from three P. vulgaris cultivars. Terminal nodes in bold have bootstrap values greater than or equal to 94 in the three methods used (NJ, MP, ML) and presented a posteriori probabilities greater than or equal to 0.99. Terminal nodes with a posteriori probabilities equal to 1.00 and with bootstrap values under 90 in any of the other methods are marked with an *. Bacter. = Bacteroidetes.

Phylogenetic tree showing the relationship between the 16S rDNA gene sequences from representative isolates of endophytic bacteria from three P. vulgaris cultivars. Terminal nodes in bold have bootstrap values greater than or equal to 94 in the three methods used (NJ, MP, ML) and presented a posteriori probabilities greater than or equal to 0.99. Terminal nodes with a posteriori probabilities equal to 1.00 and with bootstrap values under 90 in any of the other methods are marked with an *. Bacter. = Bacteroidetes. Two major clades were formed with a posterior probability of 0.50: the first is comprised of Gram positive bacteria and the second of Gram-negative bacteria. The terminal nodes containing isolates BAC2078 and BAC3048 had bootstrap values below 90 as determined by the ML method; the terminal node that contained the isolate BAC3114 BAC2073 had bootstrap values below 90 for the methods MP, had bootstrap values below 90 for both the ML and NJ ML and NJ. The phylum Bacteroidetes aligned with bacteria methods. The terminal node that contained the isolate from the phylum Proteobacteria. The diversity index that was calculated in the PAST program and the expected number of genotypes for each cultivar estimated in the R program can be visualized in Table 2.
Table 2

Number of taxa, individuals, diversity index and expected number of genotypes for each cultivar.

Diversity indices/ParametersFormulaCultivar
TALONGVER
Taxa (S)-131415
Individuals (n)-495950
Dominance (D)D = Sum(ni/n)20.2120.1350.122
Shannon (H)H = Sum((ni/n)ln(ni/n))2.0022.2822.340
Simpson (1-D)1 - D = 1 - Sum(ni/n)20.7880.8650.878
Evenness (E)E = eH/S0.5700.7000.692
Menhinick (db)Db=S/n1.8571.8232.121
Margalef (Ma)Ma = (S-l)ln(n)3.0833.1883.579
Equitability (J)J = H/Hmax0.7810.8650.864
Fisher alpha (FA)S = a*ln(l+n/a)5.7815.8017.265
Berger-Parker (d)d = n/nT0.4080.2710.200
Expected number of genotypes-1313.3814.86

Calculated in R program version 2.11.1

n = number of individuals; ni = number of individuals of taxon i; S = number of taxa; Nt = number of individuals in the dominant taxon; Hmax = log S.

Fisher’s alpha.

Number of taxa, individuals, diversity index and expected number of genotypes for each cultivar. Calculated in R program version 2.11.1 n = number of individuals; ni = number of individuals of taxon i; S = number of taxa; Nt = number of individuals in the dominant taxon; Hmax = log S. Fisher’s alpha.

DISCUSSION

Isolation and identification of endophytic bacteria was performed from the leaves of three common bean (P. vulgaris) cultivars grown under the same field conditions in Minas Gerais during the winter season. The population densities of culturable bacteria in this study were similar to the population density of isolates obtained from soybean leaves growing in herbicide-free soil by Kuklinsky-Sobral et al. (30). All identified isolates corresponded to genera commonly isolated from either the rhizosphere or bacteria associated with plants. Species from the genera Agromyces, Bacillus, Brevibacillus, Delftia, Dietzia, Enterobacter, Methylobacterium, Microbacterium, Micrococcus, Paenibacillus, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Rhodococcus, Sphingobacterium and Stenotrophomonas have already been isolated from rhizospheric soil and as endophytic bacteria in many previous studies (4, 5, 8, 18, 19, 24, 27–30, 36, 48–51, 54, 57–60). Additionally, species from the genera Acinetobacter, Brevundimonas, Frigoribacterium, Kocuria, Sphingomonas, Sporosarcina and Staphylococcus have been isolated or reported in studies of culturable and non-culturable endophytic bacteria (5, 8, 27, 29, 30, 48, 50, 51, 58). Many of the bacterial genera encountered in this work were previously reported by Lopez-Lopez et al., (34), and many species of genera Bacillus were found by Walker et al. (63) in bean seeds. However, some of the species are not the same. The presence of certain genera in different bean cultivars suggest that they are better adapted to live as endophytic bacteria in P. vulgaris than other genera. The genera isolated in this work that have not been previously reported for P. vulgaris are as follows: Agromyces, Brevibacillus, Brevundinomonas, Delftia, Dietzia, Frigoribacterium, Lysinibacillus, Sphingobacterium, Sporosarcina and Stenotrophomonas. Differences in the composition of the endophytic population according to cultivar or clone of plant have been documented for citrus plants, poplar trees, potato, salix and soybean (2, 11, 29, 41, 44, 58). The results of this study suggest that the cultivar of the plant contributes to the structure of the endophytic community associated with common bean plants or that the observed differences between common bean cultivars could be due to the use of only one sample collected in the Winter of 2007. First, some specific genera were only isolated from a single studied cultivar (Table 1). Second, isolate analyses also indicated that the cultivar of the plant may contribute to the determination of associated bacteria. Some of the genera had been isolated with greater frequency from a particular cultivar, for example, the genus Microbacterium from TAL, the genus Staphylococcus from ONG and Stenotrophomonas from VER. The differences between the number and type of isolates in each cultivar may suggest distinct endophytic communities in each cultivar. The differences in diversity of the endophytic communities of the cultivars may also be observed by the comparison of the relative class percentages presented in Figure 1. To better visualize the community structure of the three common bean cultivars studied, diversity indices (Table 2) were calculated. The diversity indices obtained show that the diversity of bacterial isolates from cultivar Talismã was lower than the diversity of isolates obtained from the other two cultivars while the diversity of bacterial isolates from the cultivar Vermelhinho was the highest. Moreover, the indices Dominance_D and Berger-Parker clearly show that a single taxa of the cultivar Talismã is more abundant in the community, and the number of isolates shown in Table 1 reveal that this is the genus Microbacterium. Bacteria usually associated with common bean leaf diseases belong to the genera Curtobacterium (22), Pseudomonas (33) and Xanthomonas (62). None of the isolates belong to Curtobacterium or Xanthomonas, while all the isolates belonging to Pseudomonas aligned with different strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa with scores of 0.999. The levels of NPK and ammonium sulfate applied to the plants were in accordance with the recommendations for producers in Brazil. However, this high level of nitrogen probably inhibited the nodulation of the bean roots and the association with other nitrogen-fixing bacteria. A few Rhizobium, Pseudomonas, Methylobacterium and Enterobacter species have already been described in the literature as nitrogen-fixing and nodule-forming organisms in the roots of many Leguminosae (7, 26, 37, 53). The five Rhizobium isolates aligned with sequences of Rhizobium larrymoorei, which was originally isolated from tumors affecting aerial parts of Ficus benjamina (9). Some bacterial species considered pathogenic for certain plant species have been isolated as endophytic in other species; from the polar tree, Ulrich et al. (58) isolated endophytes with high similarity to known plant pathogens, such as Clavibacter michiganensis, Pseudomonas syringae and Xanthomonas populi. Maes et. al. (35) also showed that Brenneria salicis could be isolated as an endophyte from poplar (Populus) and alder (Alnus). It is unclear whether these endophytic bacterial species confer some benefit to the host plant or if they merely use the host as a survival strategy in the environment to reach plants on which they can develop disease. The study of endophytic microorganisms is important to comprehend their interaction with their host plants. Additionally, endophytic microorganisms may have biotechnological applications. The potential of the isolated endophytic bacteria to promote bean plant growth and their biocontrol potential in diseases that affect the aerial parts of this important legume for the human diet will be addressed in future studies. Identity of the 16S rDNA gene sequences of the isolates with the sequences deposited in the database.
Table S1.

Identity of the 16S rDNA gene sequences of the isolates with the sequences deposited in the database.

IsolateRibossomal Database ProjectNCBI
Similarity scoreSequence nameSequence name% identity
BAC10011.00Bacillus thuringiensis(T); ATCC10792; AF290545Bacillus thuringiensis strain ODPY 16S; HM770098.1100
BAC10021.00Micrococcus luteus(T); ATCC 4698; AF542073Micrococcus luteus strain EHFS1_S04Ha 16S; EU071593.1100
BAC10031.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum StLB037; AP012052.199
BAC10041.00Micrococcus luteus(T); ATCC 4698; AF542073Micrococcus luteus strain SV21 16S; GU143803.199
BAC10051.00Micrococcus luteus(T); ATCC 4698; AF542073Micrococcus sp. 185 16S ribosomal RNA gene; EU714334.199
BAC10061.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum StLB037; AP012052.199
BAC10071.00Enterobacter asburiae(T); JCM6051; AB004744Enterobacter asburiae strain E53; HQ407230.199
BAC10081.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum strain ESS21; EF602568.199
BAC10090.98Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum strain PCSB7 16S; HM449703.198
BAC1O1O1.00Enterobacter hormaechei(T); CIP 103441; AJ508302Enterobacter hormaechei strain Ni-1 16S; HM446004.199
BAC10111.00Rhizobium larrymoorei(T); 3-10; Z30542Agrobacterium larrymoorei strain 13638E 16S; EU741094.1100
BAC10121.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.1100
BAC10131.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum StLB037; APO 12052.199
BAC10141.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.1100
BAC10150.98Bacillus niacini(T); IFO15566; AB021194Bacillus sp. DL006 16S; GQ355276.198
BAC10161.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain LCR40 16S; FJ976549.1100
BAC10171.00Bacillus thuringiensis(T); ATCC10792; AF290545Bacillus thuringiensis strain ODPY 16S; HM770098.1100
BAC10181.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum StLB037; APO 12052.199
BAC10191.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum strain ESS21 16S; EF602568.199
BAC10201.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum StLB037; APO 12052.199
BAC20211.00Rhizobium larrymoorei(T); 3-10; Z30542Agrobacterium larrymoorei strain 13638E 16S; EU741094.199
BAC20221.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum StLB037; APO 12052.199
BAC20230.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium sp. SuP10 16S; EU912450.1100
BAC20241.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.1100
BAC20251.00Rhizobium larrymoorei(T); 3-10; Z30542Agrobacterium larrymoorei strain 13638E 16S; EU741094.1100
BAC20261.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain F71028 16S; HQ908659.1100
BAC20271.00Brevibacillus agri(T); NRRL NRS-1219; D78454Brevibacillus agri partial 16S strain R-20121; AJ586388.199
BAC20280.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium populi BJ001 16S; CP001029.199
BAC20291.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum StLB037; AP012052.199
BAC20301.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16 S; HQ694734.199
BAC20311.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.199
BAC20321.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16 S; HQ694734.199
BAC20330.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium populi BJ001; CP001029.199
BAC20341.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis gene for 16S; AB617573.1100
BAC20351.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain NM62-4 16S; HM218280.1100
BAC20360.98Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium hominis strain 1P10AE; EU977655.199
BAC20370.98Sphingomonas dokdonensis(T); DS-4; DQ178975Sphingomonas dokdonensis strain 2P01AE; EU977661.199
BAC20380.98Sporosarcina aquimarina(T); SW28(T); AF202056Sporosarcina luteola gene for 16S; AB473560.199
BAC20391.00Staphylococcus caprae(T); ATCC 35538T; AB009935Staphylococcus capitis strain EHFS2_AU1Hc 16S; EU071603.1100
BAC20400.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium extorquens AM1; CP001510.199
BAC30411.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain NM62-4 16S; HM218280.1100
BAC30421.00Bacillus thuringiensis(T); ATCC10792; AF290545Bacillus thuringiensis serovar colmeri 16S; EU429660.1100
BAC30431.00Microbacterium foliorum(T); DSM 12966; P 333/02; AJ249780Microbacterium foliorum strain 720 16S; EU714376.199
BAC30440.97Bacillus bataviensis(T); type strain: LMG 21832; AJ542507Bacillus sp. R-30632 partial 16S; AM910246.199
BAC30450.98Sphingobacterium multivorum(T); IFO 14947; D14025Sphingobacterium sp. G-2-27-2 16S; EF102865.199
BAC30461.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain F71028 16S; HQ908659.1100
BAC30471.00Microbacterium testaceum (T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium sp. Fek04 16S; EU741023.199
BAC30481.00Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (T); CR-502; AY603658Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LL3; CP002634.1100
BAC30491.00Staphylococcus kloosii (T); ATCC 43959T; AB009940Staphylococcus kloosii strain FR2_36con 16S; EU934080.1100
BAC30500.99Microbacterium phyllosphaerae (T); DSM 13468; P 369/06; AJ277840Microbacterium foliorum strain 720 16S; EU714376.199
BAC30510.99Methylobacterium populi (T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium sp. SuP10 16S; EU912450.199
BAC30521.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.1100
BAC30530.97Bacillus bataviensis(T); type strain: LMG 21832; AJ542507Bacillus sp. R-30632 partial 16S; AM910246.198
BAC30540.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium sp. SuP10 16S; EU912450.1100
BAC30550.99Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.198
BAC30560.92Sporosarcina koreensis F73; DQ073393Sporosarcina ginsengisoli strain CR5 16S; HQ331532.190
BAC30570.82Acinetobacter radioresistensINBS1; AM495259Acinetobacter radioresistens strain TY37SsD 16S; HQ406757.181
BAC30581.00Acinetobacter radioresistens(T); DSM 6976; X81666Acinetobacter radioresistens strain S13 16S; GU145275.199
BAC30590.98Lysinibacillus sphaericus;KNUC228; EF166045Lysinibacillus sphaericus strain IMAU80223 16S; GU125639.197
BAC10610.92Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium sp. CSBd gene for 16S; AB552874.191
BAC10621.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain NM62-4 16S; HM218280.1100
BAC10631.00Bacillus thuringiensis(T); ATCC10792; AF290545Bacillus thuringiensis strain ODPY 16S; HM770098.1100
BAC10640.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium extorquens DM4 str. DM4; FP103042.2100
BAC10651.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum strain DSM 20166 16S; NR_026163.199
BAC10661.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum StLB037; AP012052.199
BAC10671.00Microbacterium foliorum(T); DSM 12966; P 333/02; AJ249780Microbacterium foliorum strain 720 16S; EU714376.199
BAC10680.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium extorquens AM1; CP001510.199
BAC10690.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium extorquens AM1; CP001510.1100
BAC10700.99Brevundimonas vesicularis(T); ATCC 11426 (T); AJ007801Brevundimonas vesicularis DNA for 16S strain LMG 11141; AJ227781.199
BAC20711.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain LCR40 16S; FJ976549.1100
BAC20721.00Frigoribacterium faeni(T); 801; Y18807Frigoribacterium sp. PDD-24b-20 16S; HQ256793.199
BAC20730.99Sphingomonas sanguinis(T); IFO 13937; D13726Sphingomonas pseudosanguinis partial 16S; AM412238.199
BAC20740.98Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus pasteuri partial 16S strain PSM NO.15; FR846535.198
BAC20750.99Frigoribacterium faeni(T); 801; Y18807Frigoribacterium sp. 301 16S; AF157479.199
BAC20761.00Rhizobium larrymoorei(T); 3-10; Z30542Agrobacterium larrymoorei strain 2R46 16S; EF178437.1100
BAC20771.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain F71028 16S; HQ908659.1100
BAC20781.00Bacillus subtilissubsp. subtilis (T); DSM10; AJ276351Bacillus subtilis strain M-15 16S; HQ401271.1100
BAC20791.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium sp. CSBd gene for 16S; AB552874.1100
BAC20801.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium sp. Fek04 16S; EU741023.199
BAC30811.00Brevibacillus agri(T); NRRL NRS-1219; D78454Brevibacillus agri strain PLIV 16S; HQ166189.1100
BAC30820.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium sp. SuP10 16S; EU912450.199
BAC30830.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium sp. SuP10 16S; EU912450.199
BAC30841.00Paenibacillus cineris(T); type strain:LMG 18439; AJ575658Paenibacillus sp. 3492BRRJ 16S; JF309261.1100
BAC30851.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis strain NM62-4 16S; HM218280.1100
BAC30871.00Microbacterium foliorum(T); DSM 12966; P 333/02; AJ249780Microbacterium foliorum strain 720 16S; EU714376.199
BAC30880.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium sp. DC2c-19 gene for 16S; AB552870.199
BAC30891.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.199
BAC30900.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium sp. SuP10 16S; EU912450.199
BAC10911.00Paenibacillus cineris(T); type strain:LMG 18439; AJ575658Paenibacillus cineris partial 16S; AJ575658.199
BAC10921.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum strain 4CAJ3 16S; GQ383916.199
BAC10931.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium sp. CSBd gene for 16S; AB552874.199
BAC10940.99Microbacterium phyllosphaerae(T); DSM 13468; P 369/06; AJ277840Microbacterium sp. CSBd gene for 16S99
BAC10951.00Micrococcus luteus(T); ATCC 4698; AF542073Micrococcus luteus strain EHFS1_S04Ha 16S; EU071593.1100
BAC10961.00Bacillus muralis(T); type strain: LMG 20238; AJ628748Bacillus muralis strain REG126 16S; GQ844961.1100
BAC10970.93Microbacteriumsp. S15-M4; AM234160Microbacterium sp. HY14(2010) 16S; HM579805.192
BAC10981.00Kocuria palustris(T); TAGA27 (DSM 11925, type strain); Y16263Kocuria palustris strain cT220 16S; JF303036.199
BAC10991.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.1100
BAC11001.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Staphylococcus saprophyticus strain OTUC3 16S; FJ210844.1100
BAC21011.00Staphylococcus saprophyticussubsp. saprophyticus (T); ATCC 15305 (= MAFF 911473); D83371Staphylococcus saprophyticus strain OTUC3 16S; FJ210844.1100
BAC21021.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.1100
BAC21030.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium extorquens gene for 16S rRNA; AB298401.199
BAC21041.00Delftia tsuruhatensis(T); T7; AB075017Delftia tsuruhatensis strain IPPBC R15 16S; HQ436355.1100
BAC21050.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium extorquens gene for 16S; AB298401.199
BAC21060.86Bacillus cereusme-5; EU652058Bacillus cereus partial 16S; FR749846.185
BAC21071.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.199
BAC21080.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium extorquens gene for 16S rRNA; AB298401.199
BAC21091.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.199
BAC21101.00Frigoribacterium faeni(T); 801; Y18807Frigoribacterium faeni partial 16S; AM410686.199
BAC31110.99Pseudomonas aeruginosa(T); DSM50071; X06684Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain CRC5 16S; HQ995502.1100
BAC31121.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.1100
BAC31130.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium chloromethanicum gene for 16S; AB175630.199
BAC31140.97Dietzia cinnamea(T); type strain:IMMIB RIV-399; AJ920289Dietzia timorensis gene for 16S; AB377289.1100
BAC31150.99Pseudomonas aeruginosa(T); DSM50071; X06684Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain MTH8 16S; HQ202541.1100
BAC31160.95Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.194
BAC31171.00Agromyces mediolanus(T); DSM 20152; X77449Agromyces mediolanus gene for 16S; D45054.199
BAC31181.00Agromyces mediolanus(T); DSM 20152; X77449Agromyces mediolanus strain c18 16S; FJ950540.1100
BAC31191.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA 3088 16S; GQ222399.199
BAC31200.88Stenotrophomonas maltophilia;AY484506Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.187
BAC31211.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.1100
BAC31221.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4; HM143858.1100
BAC31230.99Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.199
BAC31240.98Agromyces mediolanus(T); DSM 20152; X77449Agromyces mediolanus strain c18 16S; FJ950540.197
BAC31251.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain JKR32b 16S; HQ671069.1100
BAC21260.99Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium trichotecenolyticum strain 3370 16S; EU714362.199
BAC21270.99Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.199
BAC21281.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.1100
BAC21291.00Agromyces mediolanus(T); DSM 20152; X77449Agromyces mediolanus strain c18 16S; FJ950540.1100
BAC21300.92Agromyces mediolanusDSM 20152; X77449Agromyces mediolanus strain c70 16S; FJ950561.191
BAC21311.00Staphylococcus epidermidis(T); ATCC 14990; D83363Staphylococcus epidermidis gene for 16S; AB617573.1100
BAC21320.99Methylobacterium populi(T); BJ001; ATCC BAA-705; NCIMB 13946; AY251818Methylobacterium populi strain TNAU10 16S; EF116588.198
BAC21330.99Paenibacillus lautus(T); NRRL NRS-666T; D78473Paenibacillus lautus strain DS19 16S; EU834247.199
BAC21341.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain JKR32b 16S; HQ671069.199
BAC21351.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.1100
BAC11360.99Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.198
BAC11370.99Pseudomonas aeruginosa(T); DSM50071; X06684Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain MTH8 16S; HQ202541.1100
BAC11381.00Enterobacter asburiae(T); JCM6051; AB004744Enterobacter hormaechei strain Ni-1 16S; HM446004.199
BAC11391.00Enterobacter hormaechei(T); CIP 103441; AJ508302Enterobacter cancerogenus strain M119 16S; HQ407292.199
BAC11401.00Bacillus thuringiensis(T); ATCC10792; AF290545Bacillus thuringiensis strain ODPY 16S; HM770098.1100
BAC11411.00Bacillus thuringiensis(T); ATCC10792; AF290545Bacillus thuringiensis strain ODPY 16S; HM770098.1100
BAC21421.00Rhizobium larrymoorei(T); 3-10; Z30542Agrobacterium larrymoorei strain 13638E 16S; EU741094.1100
BAC21430.95Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.195
BAC21440.88Staphylococcus saprophyticusATCC 15305; AP008934Staphylococcus saprophyticus strain T86 16S; HQ407261.188
BAC21450.81Paenibacillus lautusJCM 9073; AB073188Paenibacillus lactis strain ZYb1 16S; FJ445392.180
BAC21470.98Bacillus bataviensis(T); type strain: LMG 21832; AJ542507Bacillus circulans strain RIGLD BC1 16S; HQ315829.198
BAC31481.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas sp. 2A9S2 16S; HQ246220.1100
BAC31491.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas sp. 2A9N6 16S; HQ246302.1100
BAC31501.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain AhsB4 16S; HM143858.1100
BAC31511.00Bacillus thuringiensis(T); ATCC10792; AF290545Bacillus thuringiensis strain NBB6 16S; HQ256544.1100
BAC11521.00Staphylococcus warneri(T); L37603Staphylococcus warneri strain FUA2075 16S; HQ694734.1100
BAC21531.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum strain BAC2153 16S; HM355741.1100
BAC31541.00Microbacterium testaceum(T); DSM 20166; X77445Microbacterium testaceum strain BAC3154 16S; HM355742.1100
BAC31551.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas sp. 2A9N6 16S; HQ246302.1100
BAC11560.92Delftia tsuruhatensis(T); T7; AB075017Delftia tsuruhatensis strain BN-HKY6 16S; HQ731453.192
BAC11571.00Microbacterium foliorum(T); DSM 12966; P 333/02; AJ249780Microbacterium foliorum strain DS42 16S; EU834263.199
BAC21581.00Delftia tsuruhatensis(T); T7; AB075017Delftia tsuruhatensis strain BN-HKY6 16S; HQ731453.1100
BAC31591.00Delftia tsuruhatensis(T); T7; AB075017Delftia tsuruhatensis strain BN-HKY6 16S; HQ731453.1100
BAC21601.00Stenotrophomonas maltophilia(T); ATCC 13637T; AB008509Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain BAC3148 16S; HM355736.1100
BAC21621.00Rhodococcus erythropolis(T); ATCC 4277T; X81929Rhodococcus erythropolis strain BAC2162 16S; HM355749.1100
  39 in total

1.  Frequency, size, and localization of bacterial aggregates on bean leaf surfaces.

Authors:  J-M Monier; S E Lindow
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 2.  Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria for biocontrol of plant diseases: principles, mechanisms of action, and future prospects.

Authors:  Stéphane Compant; Brion Duffy; Jerzy Nowak; Christophe Clément; Essaïd Ait Barka
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Agromyces luteolus sp. nov., Agromyces rhizospherae sp. nov. and Agromyces bracchium sp. nov., from the mangrove rhizosphere.

Authors:  M Takeuchi; K Hatano
Journal:  Int J Syst Evol Microbiol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.747

4.  Methylotrophic Methylobacterium bacteria nodulate and fix nitrogen in symbiosis with legumes.

Authors:  A Sy; E Giraud; P Jourand; N Garcia; A Willems; P de Lajudie; Y Prin; M Neyra; M Gillis; C Boivin-Masson; B Dreyfus
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.490

5.  Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria from the nickel hyperaccumulator plant Alyssum bertolonii.

Authors:  Rita Barzanti; Francesca Ozino; Marco Bazzicalupo; Roberto Gabbrielli; Francesca Galardi; Cristina Gonnelli; Alessio Mengoni
Journal:  Microb Ecol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.552

6.  Diversity of endophytic bacterial populations and their interaction with Xylella fastidiosa in citrus plants.

Authors:  Welington L Araújo; Joelma Marcon; Walter Maccheroni; Jan Dirk Van Elsas; Jim W L Van Vuurde; João Lúcio Azevedo
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Methylobacterium populi sp. nov., a novel aerobic, pink-pigmented, facultatively methylotrophic, methane-utilizing bacterium isolated from poplar trees (Populus deltoides x nigra DN34).

Authors:  Benoit Van Aken; Caroline M Peres; Sharon Lafferty Doty; Jong Moon Yoon; Jerald L Schnoor
Journal:  Int J Syst Evol Microbiol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.747

8.  Brenneria salicis, the bacterium causing watermark disease in willow, resides as an endophyte in wood.

Authors:  Martine Maes; Hanneke Huvenne; Eric Messens
Journal:  Environ Microbiol       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 5.491

9.  Diversity of culturable bacteria isolated from root domains of moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis).

Authors:  Jigang Han; Dongliang Xia; Lubin Li; Lei Sun; Kai Yang; Liping Zhang
Journal:  Microb Ecol       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 4.552

10.  Methylobacterium nodulans sp. nov., for a group of aerobic, facultatively methylotrophic, legume root-nodule-forming and nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

Authors:  Philippe Jourand; Eric Giraud; Gilles Béna; Abdoulaye Sy; Anne Willems; Monique Gillis; Bernard Dreyfus; Philippe de Lajudie
Journal:  Int J Syst Evol Microbiol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.747

View more
  30 in total

1.  Genome analysis reveals insights of the endophytic Bacillus toyonensis BAC3151 as a potentially novel agent for biocontrol of plant pathogens.

Authors:  Ralf Lopes; Louise Cerdeira; Grace S Tavares; Jeronimo C Ruiz; Jochen Blom; Elvira C A Horácio; Hilário C Mantovani; Marisa Vieira de Queiroz
Journal:  World J Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 3.312

2.  Identification of endophytic bacteria in medicinal plants and their antifungal activities against food spoilage fungi.

Authors:  Zahra Erjaee; Seyyed Shahram Shekarforoush; Saeid Hosseinzadeh
Journal:  J Food Sci Technol       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 2.701

3.  Endophytic Bacteria Isolated from Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Exhibiting High Variability Showed Antimicrobial Activity and Quorum Sensing Inhibition.

Authors:  Ralf Bruno Moura Lopes; Leonardo Emanuel de Oliveira Costa; Maria Cristina Dantas Vanetti; Elza Fernandes de Araújo; Marisa Vieira de Queiroz
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.188

4.  All Set before Flowering: A 16S Gene Amplicon-Based Analysis of the Root Microbiome Recruited by Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Its Centre of Domestication.

Authors:  Francisco Medina-Paz; Luis Herrera-Estrella; Martin Heil
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-21

5.  Culturable Endophytic Bacteria of Ginger Rhizome and their Remarkable Multi-trait Plant Growth-Promoting Features.

Authors:  Sabu Rohini; R Aswani; M Kannan; V P Sylas; E K Radhakrishnan
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 2.188

6.  Comparative Study between Exogenously Applied Plant Growth Hormones versus Metabolites of Microbial Endophytes as Plant Growth-Promoting for Phaseolus vulgaris L.

Authors:  Mohamed A Ismail; Mohamed A Amin; Ahmed M Eid; Saad El-Din Hassan; Hany A M Mahgoub; Islam Lashin; Abdelrhman T Abdelwahab; Ehab Azab; Adil A Gobouri; Amr Elkelish; Amr Fouda
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 6.600

7.  Deciphering the bacterial microbiome of citrus plants in response to 'Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus'-infection and antibiotic treatments.

Authors:  Muqing Zhang; Charles A Powell; Lesley S Benyon; Hui Zhou; Yongping Duan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Profiling, isolation and characterisation of beneficial microbes from the seed microbiomes of drought tolerant wheat.

Authors:  Holly Hone; Ross Mann; Guodong Yang; Jatinder Kaur; Ian Tannenbaum; Tongda Li; German Spangenberg; Timothy Sawbridge
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 4.996

9.  Cultivable endophytic bacteria from leaf bases of Agave tequilana and their role as plant growth promoters.

Authors:  Julia del C Martínez-Rodríguez; Marcela De la Mora-Amutio; Luis A Plascencia-Correa; Esmeralda Audelo-Regalado; Francisco R Guardado; Elías Hernández-Sánchez; Yuri J Peña-Ramírez; Adelfo Escalante; Miguel J Beltrán-García; Tetsuya Ogura
Journal:  Braz J Microbiol       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 2.476

10.  Spatial and Temporal Variation of Cultivable Communities of Co-occurring Endophytes and Pathogens in Wheat.

Authors:  Morgane Comby; Sandrine Lacoste; Fabienne Baillieul; Camille Profizi; Joëlle Dupont
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 5.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.