2020
DOI: 10.1128/msphere.00306-20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bacterial Community Structure Dynamics in Meloidogyne incognita -Infected Roots and Its Role in Worm-Microbiome Interactions

Abstract: Plant parasitic nematodes such as Meloidogyne incognita have a complex life cycle, occurring sequentially in various niches of the root and rhizosphere. They are known to form a range of interactions with bacteria and other microorganisms that can affect their densities and virulence. High-throughput sequencing can reveal these interactions in high temporal and geographic resolutions, although thus far we have only scratched the surface. In this study, we have carried out a longitudinal sampling scheme, repeat… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 127 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bacterial community richness and diversity in root-knot nematode diseased soils was significantly different from that in healthy soils [8, 28-30, 86, 87]. Our results are consistent to some findings in these studies: (1) the rhizosphere and endophyte microbial communities of plant root (especially Solanaceae) are affected by nematode-pathogenesis [29,30,87]; (2) potential biological control microorganisms such as Arthrobacter, Bacillus, Lysobacter, and Pseudomonas showed large proportions in non-infested soil and fields with lower population densities of M. incognita [28,30]; (3) In rhizosphere and endophyte community, the most abundant phylum is Proteobacteria [87]. In our study, Proteobacteria was also the most abundant phylum.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Bacterial community richness and diversity in root-knot nematode diseased soils was significantly different from that in healthy soils [8, 28-30, 86, 87]. Our results are consistent to some findings in these studies: (1) the rhizosphere and endophyte microbial communities of plant root (especially Solanaceae) are affected by nematode-pathogenesis [29,30,87]; (2) potential biological control microorganisms such as Arthrobacter, Bacillus, Lysobacter, and Pseudomonas showed large proportions in non-infested soil and fields with lower population densities of M. incognita [28,30]; (3) In rhizosphere and endophyte community, the most abundant phylum is Proteobacteria [87]. In our study, Proteobacteria was also the most abundant phylum.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…In comparison to fish, the microbiome research associated with nematodes isolated from different environments has become an increasingly popular area of study. Using the 16S rRNA gene sequencing approaches the microbiota of Caenorhabditis elegans ( Berg et al, 2016 ; Dirksen et al, 2016 ; Samuel et al, 2016 ), various marine nematodes ( Schuelke et al, 2018 ; Bellec et al, 2019 ), soil-associated nematodes ( Baquiran et al, 2013 ; Berg et al, 2016 ; Zheng et al, 2020 ), a ruminant parasite ( Cortés et al, 2020 ), and plant parasitic nematodes ( Yergaliyev et al, 2020 ) were investigated. To date, the most intensively studied model species for the microbiome research is the nematode C. elegans ( Berg et al, 2016 ; Dirksen et al, 2016 ; Samuel et al, 2016 , and others).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among 827 raw data we collected for machine learning, a subset of data for disease‐conducive soils provided by Yergaliyev et al . (2020) contained 167 samples (PRJNA614519). If we considered all these 167 samples, results of metadata analysis and machine learning will be dominated by this subset of data and cannot obtain the general patterns of bacterial communities in multiple disease‐suppressive soils.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…And the diseasesuppressive soil was defined as soils that rarely cause disease even when virulent pathogens and susceptible plant hosts are present, or the soils were confirmed that had the ability to suppress the diseases in the laboratory. Among 827 raw data we collected for machine learning, a subset of data for disease-conducive soils provided by Yergaliyev et al (2020) contained 167 samples (PRJNA614519). If we considered all these 167 samples, results of metadata analysis and machine learning will be dominated by this subset of data and cannot obtain the general patterns of bacterial communities in multiple disease-suppressive soils.…”
Section: Data Collection and Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%