| Literature DB >> 26372013 |
Yang Xiang1, Xiao-Qin Wu1, Ai-Dong Zhou1.
Abstract
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus is the pathogen of pine wilt disease. Bursaphelenchus mucronatus is similar to B. xylophilus in morphology. Both species share a common niche, but they are quite different in pathogenicity. Presently, the role of bacteria in pine wilt disease development has been widely speculated. The diversity of bacteria associated with B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus with different virulence remains unclear. In this study, virulence of four B. xylophilus and four B. mucronatus strains were evaluated by inoculating Pinus thunbergii. High-throughput sequencing targeted 16S rDNA of different virulence nematode strains was carried out. The associated bacterial community structures of the eight strains were analyzed. The results showed that 634,051 high-quality sequences were obtained from the eight nematode strains. The number of OTUs of bacteria associated with B. mucronatus was generally greater than those of B. xylophilus. The richness of the community of bacteria associated with high virulent B. xylophilus ZL1 and AmA3 was higher than moderately virulent B. xylophilus AA3, HE2, and all B. mucronatus strains. While the diversity of bacteria associated with B. mucronatus was higher than B. xylophilus. Stenotrophomonas, Pseudomonadaceae_Unclassified or Rhizobiaceae_Unclassified were predominant in the nematode strains with different virulence. Oxalobacteraceae and Achromobacter were found more abundant in the low virulent B. xylophilus and non-virulent B. mucronatus strains.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26372013 PMCID: PMC4570786 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137386
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and B. mucronatus strains for virulence test.
| Nematodes | Nematode strains | Pine hosts | Year of collection | Sampling region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ZL1 |
| 2004 | Linhai, Zhejiang |
| AmA3 |
| 2004 | Ma’anshan, Anhui | |
| HE2 |
| 2004 | Enshi, Hubei | |
| AA3 |
| 2004 | Anqing, Anhui | |
|
| CFS1 |
| 2005 | Fushun, Sichuan |
| SD1 |
| 2005 | Dazhu, Sichuan | |
| JNL10 |
| 2004 | Nanjing, Jiangsu | |
| GHB3 |
| 2004 | Huizhou, Guangdong |
The symptoms of P. thunbergii after inoculated with B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus.
| Infection rates/ % | DSI | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nematode strains | 20th day | 30th day | 40th day | 20th day | 30th day | 40th day | Days of symptoms appeared (d) | Days of |
| ZL1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 85 | 100 | 11 | 24 |
| AMA3 | 80 | 100 | 100 | 35 | 70 | 100 | 11 | 24 |
| AA3 | 80 | 100 | 100 | 25 | 45 | 100 | 13 | 31 |
| HE2 | 60 | 100 | 100 | 20 | 45 | 100 | 17 | 33 |
| CFS1 | 40 | 100 | 100 | 20 | 45 | 75 | 19 | - |
| SD1 | 20 | 100 | 100 | 10 | 35 | 60 | 19 | - |
| JNL10 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 31 | - |
| GHB3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - |
| CK | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - |
Fig 1OTU numbers of bacteria associated with B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus.
Fig 2Rarefaction analysis of bacteria associated with B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus.
The diversity index of bacteria associated with B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus.
| Nematodes | Nematode strains | Coverage ( | Chao (97%) | Simpson ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ZL1 (HV) | 100 | 7289 | 0.769 | 4.126 |
| AmA3 (HV) | 100 | 7276 | 0.871 | 4.995 | |
| AA3 (MV) | 100 | 4098 | 0.848 | 5.121 | |
| HE2 (MV) | 100 | 4663 | 0.829 | 4.552 | |
|
| CFS1 (MV) | 100 | 6319 | 0.919 | 6.140 |
| SD1 (MV) | 100 | 5967 | 0.898 | 5.602 | |
| JNL10 (LV) | 100 | 6743 | 0.896 | 5.588 | |
| GHB3 (NV) | 100 | 4786 | 0.933 | 6.132 |
Fig 3The bacterial composition of B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus at phylum level.
The sorting of PWN-associated bacteria according to the relative abundance.
| The abundance of nematode associated bacteria | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nematode strains | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| ZL1 (HV) | Pseudomonadaceae_Unclassified (35.9%) |
|
|
| Rhizobiaceae_Unclassifie (6.1%) |
| AmA3 (HV) |
| Rhizobiaceae_Unclassifie (24.4%) |
| Oxalobacteraceae_Unclassified (4.5%) |
|
| AA3 (MV) |
|
| Enterobacteriaceae_Unclassified (4.2%) | Oxalobacteraceae_Unclassified (2.9%) |
|
| HE2 (MV) | Rhizobiaceae_Unclassified (40.2%) |
|
|
| Pseudomonadaceae_Unclassified (2.7%) |
| CFS1 (MV) | Pseudomonadaceae_Unclassified (31.2%) | Rhizobiaceae_Unclassified(10.1%) |
| Oxalobacteraceae_Unclassified (7.4%) | Sphingobacteriaceae_Unclassified (6.3%) |
| SD1 (MV) |
| Pseudomonadaceae_Unclassified (24.2%) | Oxalobacteraceae_Unclassified (14.7%) | Sphingobacteriaceae_Unclassified (5.1%) | Enterobacteriaceae_Unclassified (4.5%) |
| JNL10 (LV) | Oxalobacteraceae_Unclassified (23.3%) |
| Pseudomonadaceae_Unclassified (10.9%) | Rhizobiaceae_Unclassifie (9.7%) |
|
| GHB3 (NV) |
| Oxalobacteraceae_Unclassified (12.1%) | Rhizobiaceae_Unclassified(10.1%) | Sphingobacteriaceae_Unclassified (9.4%) | Enterobacteriaceae_Unclassified (8.2%) |
Fig 4The bacterial composition of B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus at genus level.