| Literature DB >> 35812912 |
Cláudia S L Vicente1,2, Miguel Soares3, Jorge M S Faria2, Margarida Espada1, Manuel Mota4, Filomena Nóbrega2, Ana P Ramos3, Maria L Inácio2,5.
Abstract
Considered one of the most devastating plant-parasitic nematodes worldwide, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (commonly known as pinewood nematode, PWN) is the causal agent of the pine wilt disease in the Eurasian coniferous forests. This migratory parasitic nematode is carried by an insect vector (Monochamus spp.) into the host tree (Pinus species), where it can feed on parenchymal cells and reproduce massively, resulting in the tree wilting. In declining trees, PWN populations are strongly dependent on fungal communities colonizing the host (predominantly ophiostomatoid fungi known to cause sapwood blue-staining, the blue-stain fungi), which not only influence their development and life cycle but also the number of individuals carried by the insect vector into a new host. Our main aim is to understand if PWN-associated mycobiota plays a key role in the development of PWD, in interaction with the PWN and the insect vector, and to what extent it can be targeted to disrupt the disease cycle. For this purpose, we characterized the fungal communities of Pinus pinaster trees infected and non-infected with PWN in three collection sites in Continental Portugal with different PWD temporal incidences. Our results showed that non-infected P. pinaster mycoflora is more diverse (in terms of abundance and fungal richness) than PWN-infected pine trees in the most recent PWD foci, as opposed to the fungal communities of long-term PWD history sites. Then, due to their ecological importance for PWN survival, representatives of the main ophiostomatoid fungi isolated (Ophiostoma, Leptographium, and Graphilbum) were characterized for their adaptative response to temperature, competition in-between taxa, and as food source for PWN. Under the conditions studied, Leptographium isolates showed promising results for PWN control. They could outcompete the other species, especially O. ips, and significantly reduce the development of PWN populations when compared to Botrytis cinerea (routinely used for PWN lab culturing), suggesting this to be a natural antagonist not only for the other blue-stain species but also for the PWN.Entities:
Keywords: biocontrol; blue-stain fungi; diversity; ecological interactions; mycoflora; pinewood nematode
Year: 2022 PMID: 35812912 PMCID: PMC9257700 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.908308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Characterization of geographic and climate conditions for each collection site (Seia, Tróia, Companhia das Lezírias).
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seia (S) | 40°15'57.0”N | 18 | 0.5 | 50–100 | No | S1 | 0 | 0 |
| 7°42'47.6”W | S2 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| S13 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| S19 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| S32 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Yes | S35 | 3 | IV | |||||
| S36 | 3 | IV | ||||||
| S38 | 3 | IV | ||||||
| S39 | 3 | III | ||||||
| S40 | 3 | III | ||||||
| Companhia das Lezírias (L) | 38°49'17.6“N | 10 | 1.5 | 50–100 | No | L7 | 0 | 0 |
| 8°52'20.5”W | L8 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| L9 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| L10 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| L11 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Yes | L2 | 4 | III | |||||
| L3 | 3 | III | ||||||
| L4 | 3 | IV | ||||||
| L5 | 3 | III | ||||||
| L6 | 4 | IV | ||||||
| Tróia (T) | 38°28'07”N | 20 | 0.5 | 1–5 | No | T8 | 0 | 0 |
| 8°52'18”W | T9 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| T10 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| T11 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| T12 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Yes | T1 | 4 | IV | |||||
| T2 | 4 | III | ||||||
| T3 | 4 | II | ||||||
| T4 | 4 | III | ||||||
| T7 | 4 | IV | ||||||
Classification of Pinus pinaster trees sampled (disease symptoms and nematode class).
.
Figure 1Frequency of isolation (%) of the main Ophiostomatales orders isolated in this study.
Ecological diversity indexes (taxa = order) of fungal communities from non-infected and PWN-infected Pinus pinaster trees sampled.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Taxa S | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| Individuals | 43 | 60 | 25 | 20 | 44 | 50 |
| Dominance D | 0.2872 | 0.535 | 0.36 | 0.255 | 0.469 | 0.3096 |
| Simpson 1-D | 0.7128 | 0.465 | 0.64 | 0.745 | 0.531 | 0.6904 |
| Shannon H | 1.434 | 0.8711 | 1.139 | 1.51 | 1.106 | 1.276 |
| Evenness e∧H/S | 0.6989 | 0.5974 | 0.7808 | 0.7544 | 0.5038 | 0.7162 |
| Sørensen index | 0.60 | 0.2 | 0.182 | |||
Fungal isolates representative of the main Ophiostomatales genus isolated in this study.
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| 1 | L2.2 | PWD-symptomatic | Companhia das Lezírias | OM468578 | – | – | – | |
| L4.2 | PWD-symptomatic | Companhia das Lezírias | OK559549 | – | OM616860 | – | ||
| L5.1 | PWD-symptomatic | Companhia das Lezírias | OK559550 | – | OM616861 | – | ||
| S38.7 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | – | – | – | – | ||
| 2 |
| S38.3 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OM468594 | OM514986 | – | – |
|
| S38.9 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OM468595 | ON333628 | ON333659 | ON333660 | |
|
| S40.4b | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OK559544 | OM514987 | OM616854 | – | |
| 3 |
| L2.6 | PWD-symptomatic | Companhia das Lezírias | OK559548 | OM514991 | OM616859 | OM616866 |
| 4 | T2.13 | PWD-symptomatic | Tróia | OK559547 | OM514990 | – | – | |
| T7.1 | PWD-symptomatic | Tróia | OM468585 | ON333629 | – | ON333661 | ||
| S40.11 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | – | OM513989 | OM616856 | – | ||
| T3.1 | PWD-symptomatic | Tróia | OK559545 | OM514988 | OM616857 | OM616865 | ||
| T3.6 | PWD-symptomatic | Tróia | – | – | OM616858 | – | ||
| 5 |
| L3.1 | PWD-symptomatic | Companhia das Lezírias | OM468579 | ON333612 | ON333630 | ON333647 |
|
| L4.1 | PWD-symptomatic | Companhia das Lezírias | OM468580 | ON333613 | ON333631 | – | |
|
| L5.2 | PWD-symptomatic | Companhia das Lezírias | OM468581 | ON333614 | ON333632 | – | |
|
| T1.4 | PWD-symptomatic | Tróia | OM468583 | ON333615 | ON333633 | ON333648 | |
|
| T2.3 | PWD-symptomatic | Tróia | OM468584 | ON333616 | ON333634 | ON333649 | |
|
| T7.4 | PWD-symptomatic | Tróia | OM468586 | ON333617 | ON333635 | ON333650 | |
|
| S13.1 | Non-symptomatic | Seia | OM468587 | ON333618 | ON333636 | ON333651 | |
|
| S19.2 | Non-symptomatic | Seia | OM468588 | ON333619 | ON333637 | ON333652 | |
|
| S19.17 | Non-symptomatic | Seia | OM468589 | ON333620 | ON333638 | – | |
|
| S32.10 | Non-symptomatic | Seia | OM468590 | ON333621 | ON333639 | ON333653 | |
|
| S35.1 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OM468591 | ON333622 | ON333640 | ON333654 | |
|
| S35.3 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OM468592 | ON333623 | ON333641 | ON333655 | |
|
| S36.1 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OK559539 | OM616846 | OM616850 | – | |
|
| S36.9 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OM468593 | ON333624 | ON333642 | ON333656 | |
|
| S38.16 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OK559541 | OM616848 | OM616853 | OM616862 | |
|
| S39.1 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OK559540 | OM616847 | OM616851 | – | |
|
| S39.6 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OM468596 | – | ON333643 | – | |
|
| S40.10 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OK559542 | OM616849 | OM616855 | OM616863 | |
|
| S40.1a | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OM468597 | ON333625 | ON333644 | ON333657 | |
|
| S40.7 | PWD-symptomatic | Seia | OM468598 | ON333626 | ON333645 | ON333658 | |
| 6 | L5.3 | PWD-symptomatic | Companhia das Lezírias | OM468583 | ON333627 | ON333646 | – | |
Figure 2Maximum likelihood trees of Leptographium sensu lato generated by β-tubulin (TUB) and elongation factor 1-α (TEF) DNA sequence data. Sequences generated from this study are presented in bold (Table 2). Bootstrap values ≥70% are presented above the respective branch. Branch length is a measure of the number of substitutions per site (scale bar). T = ex-type isolates.
Figure 3Maximum likelihood trees of Ophiostoma sensu stricto generated by internal-transcribed spacer (ITS2) and elongation factor 1-α (TEF) DNA sequence data. Sequences generated from this study are presented in Bold (Table 2). Bootstrap values ≥70% are presented above the respective branch. Branch length is a measure of the number of substitutions per site (scale bar). T = ex-type isolates.
Figure 4Comparison of mean growth per day (± standard error) of (A) Ophiostoma ips (S36.1, S39.1, S38.16, S40.10), (B) Leptographium sp. (S40.4b, T2.13, T3.1, T3.6), and (C) Graphilbum sp. (L4.2, L5.1).
Figure 5Percentage of inhibition of the potential antagonist x tested organism (grown at 25°C for 5 days).
Figure 6Reproduction of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus population in each ophiostomatoid fungi and Botrytis cinerea (control) (mean total no. nematodes ± standard error). Asterisks (***) indicate statistical differences at 99% of confidence in relation to B. cinerea.