| Literature DB >> 30596699 |
Long Xie1, Susanna Lehvävirta2, Sari Timonen3, Jutta Kasurinen3, Juhamatti Niemikapee4, Jari P T Valkonen1.
Abstract
Rhizophagus irregularis, an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus, andEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30596699 PMCID: PMC6312232 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209432
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Detailed staining protocol for eight plant species.
| Staining solutions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant species | KOH | H2O2+NH3 | 1% HCl | Trypan Blue |
| 60 min in 2.5% KOH at 80°C | 40 min | 30 min | 60 min at 80°C | |
| 60 min in 2.5% KOH at 80°C | None | 30 min | 45 min at 95°C | |
| 60 min in 2.5% KOH at 80°C | None | 30 min | 90 min at 90°C | |
| 30 min in 2.5% KOH at 121°C | None | 30 min | 75 min at 90°C | |
| 48 h in 1.25% KOH at RT | None | 60 min | 60 min at 80°C | |
| 60 min in 2.5% KOH at 80°C | None | 30 min | 75 min at 95°C | |
| 20 min in 2.5% KOH at 90°C | None | 60 min | 90 min at 80°C | |
| 48 h in 2.5% KOH at RT | 30 min | 90 min | 90 min at 90°C | |
1 1.5% hydrogen peroxide containing 5 ml/l ammonia.
2 Lactic acid containing 63 ml/l glycerol, 63 ml/l water, and 0.02% Trypan Blue.
3 Room temperature.
Fig 1Microscopic images of AMF structures in roots of eight plants co-inoculated with R. irregularis and B. amyloliquefaciens from the second experiment.
(a−h) Images from C. rotundifolia (a), L. corniculatus (b), T. repens (c), G. sanguineum (d), F. vesca (e), V. tricolor (f), T. serpyllum (g), and A. dioica (h). Scale bars represent 50 μm. A black arrow, a + symbol, and a star indicate a hypha, vesicle, and arbuscule, respectively.
Colonization by AMF of roots of eight plant species following inoculation with R. irregularis and co-inoculation with R. irregularis and B. amyloliquefaciens from the second experiment..
| Plant species | Hyphae (%) | Arbuscules (%) | Vesicles (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | R+B | R | R+B | R | R+B | |
| 0 | 3.0 ± 1.0 | 0 | 1.0 ± 0.6 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 40.0 ± 3.6 | 0 | 30.7 ± 2.7 | 0 | 11.0 ± 1.5 | |
| 0 | 65.7 ± 2.2 | 0 | 58.0 ± 3.2 | 0 | 21.3 ± 1.2 | |
| 3.0 ± 2.1 | 48.0 ± 2.5 | 0 | 38.3 ± 2.6 | 0 | 8.7 ± 1.9 | |
| 6.7 ± 3.4 | 95.0 ± 2.0 | 2.7 ± 1.5 | 82.7 ± 3.2 | 0 | 14.0 ± 2.1 | |
| 17.7 ± 3.2 | 46.0 ± 1.0 | 11.7 ± 2.3 | 29.7 ± 4.2 | 0 | 1.3 ± 0.9 | |
| 36.7 ± 2.3 | 87.7 ± 1.2 | 18.7 ± 0.9 | 47.0 ± 7.0 | 2.0 ± 0.6 | 8.0 ± 2.0 | |
| 46.3 ± 1.2 | 82.0 ± 1.2 | 13.3 ± 1.5 | 63.3 ± 2.3 | 7.3 ± 0.7 | 14.0 ± 1.0 | |
Differences in the colonization rate of roots between the treatments R and R+B were tested by LSD0.05
*P < 0.05
**P < 0.01.
Content of B. amyloliquefaciens in the soil adhering to roots in different plant species following different treatments, as measured by qPCR.
| Plant species | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | B | R+B | B | R+B | B | R+B | B | R+B | B | R+B | B | R+B | B | R+B | B | R+B |
| 1.5 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 117.0 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 4.8 | 126.4 | 117.4 | 15.5 | 1.5 | 17.8 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 5.8 | 20.4 | |
| 10.0 | 0 | 16.3 | 48.6 | 2.4 | 15.6 | 0 | 94.3 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 35.2 | 199.0 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 90 | |
| 1.4 | 0 | 1.4 | 3.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 2.6 | 0 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 0 | 41.9 | |
| P = 0.373 | P = 0.210 | P = 0.408 | P = 0.129 | P = 0.414 | P = 0.401 | P = 0.430 | P = 0.09 | |||||||||
| 3.0 | 16.2 | 16.9 | 3.0 | 12.3 | 6.0 | 10.9 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 8.7 | 4.5 | 3.3 | 11.1 | 1.1 | 42.8 | 5.9 | |
| 0.9 | 1.4 | 7.4 | 6.2 | 19.3 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 5.6 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 16.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.7 | |
| 3.9 | 2.3 | 10.3 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 0 | 0.8 | 8.8 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 15.1 | 2.5 | |
| P = 0.454 | P = 0.374 | P = 0.208 | P = 0.779 | P = 0.314 | P = 0.163 | P = 0.161 | P = 0.246 | |||||||||
No significant differences were observed between the treatments B and R+B (P < 0.05; LSD0.05).
Fig 2Fold change in shoot weight of four plant species whose results were consistent across the two NaPPI experiments.
Bars (mean ± SE) represent fold changes in shoot weight of R, B, and R+B treated plants as compared with untreated control plants (Ctl). Graphs in the upper and lower row are from the first (1) and second (2) NaPPI experiment, respectively. (a−d) Data from C. rotundifolia (a), T. serpyllum (b), F. vesca (c), and T. repens (d). Different lowercase letters above the bars indicate statistical differences (LSD0.05) between the treatments at P < 0.05.
Fig 3Quenching analysis of chlorophyll activities in leaves of plant species whose results were consistent in the two NaPPI experiments.
Bars (mean ± SE) represent the Fv/Fm ratio of chlorophyll fluorescence for treated and untreated plants. Bar charts in the upper and lower row are from the first and second NaPPI experiment, respectively. Different lowercase letters above the bars indicate statistical differences (LSD0.05) between the treatments. Missing data indicate that the Fv/Fm ratio was too low to be detected.