Morphological spore-based characterisation and molecular approaches reveal comparable patterns in glomeromycotan communities.

IF 3.3 2区 生物学 Q2 MYCOLOGY Mycorrhiza Pub Date : 2025-03-10 DOI:10.1007/s00572-025-01198-4
Noelia Cofré, Gabriel Grilli, Nicolás Marro, Martín Videla, Carlos Urcelay
{"title":"Morphological spore-based characterisation and molecular approaches reveal comparable patterns in glomeromycotan communities.","authors":"Noelia Cofré, Gabriel Grilli, Nicolás Marro, Martín Videla, Carlos Urcelay","doi":"10.1007/s00572-025-01198-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditionally, characterisation and comparison of AMF communities has been carried out by morphological identification of asexual spores in soil. In recent decades, molecular methods such as soil metabarcoding have become more popular than morphological identification of spores, but direct comparisons of the efficiency of both approaches have been rare. In this study, we compared AMF communities in soil samples from vegetable farms using both morphological and molecular methods (internal transcribed spacer, ITS, markers). In addition, we performed a systematic literature search and retrieved nine studies that analysed AMF communities using both approaches in the same soil samples, mostly in agroecosystems. Our results show that AMF communities determined by morphological spore-based identification are different than those determined by molecular genetic markers, but not as often claimed. In some cases, the morphological spore-based characterisation of spores revealed more diverse glomeromycotan communities. Moreover, in several cases the spore-based methods recovered taxa that the molecular methods did not, while in other cases the opposite was observed. The field and literature-based results of this study indicate that for a comprehensive and exhaustive characterisation of AMF communities it is necessary to combine both approaches. However, if the aim is to compare communities under different environmental conditions, both approaches provide comparable patterns.</p>","PeriodicalId":18965,"journal":{"name":"Mycorrhiza","volume":"35 2","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mycorrhiza","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-025-01198-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MYCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Traditionally, characterisation and comparison of AMF communities has been carried out by morphological identification of asexual spores in soil. In recent decades, molecular methods such as soil metabarcoding have become more popular than morphological identification of spores, but direct comparisons of the efficiency of both approaches have been rare. In this study, we compared AMF communities in soil samples from vegetable farms using both morphological and molecular methods (internal transcribed spacer, ITS, markers). In addition, we performed a systematic literature search and retrieved nine studies that analysed AMF communities using both approaches in the same soil samples, mostly in agroecosystems. Our results show that AMF communities determined by morphological spore-based identification are different than those determined by molecular genetic markers, but not as often claimed. In some cases, the morphological spore-based characterisation of spores revealed more diverse glomeromycotan communities. Moreover, in several cases the spore-based methods recovered taxa that the molecular methods did not, while in other cases the opposite was observed. The field and literature-based results of this study indicate that for a comprehensive and exhaustive characterisation of AMF communities it is necessary to combine both approaches. However, if the aim is to compare communities under different environmental conditions, both approaches provide comparable patterns.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Mycorrhiza
Mycorrhiza 生物-真菌学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.60%
发文量
40
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mycorrhiza is an international journal devoted to research into mycorrhizas - the widest symbioses in nature, involving plants and a range of soil fungi world-wide. The scope of Mycorrhiza covers all aspects of research into mycorrhizas, including molecular biology of the plants and fungi, fungal systematics, development and structure of mycorrhizas, and effects on plant physiology, productivity, reproduction and disease resistance. The scope also includes interactions between mycorrhizal fungi and other soil organisms and effects of mycorrhizas on plant biodiversity and ecosystem structure. Mycorrhiza contains original papers, short notes and review articles, along with commentaries and news items. It forms a platform for new concepts and discussions, and is a basis for a truly international forum of mycorrhizologists from all over the world.
期刊最新文献
Morphological spore-based characterisation and molecular approaches reveal comparable patterns in glomeromycotan communities. Unlocking germination: the role of mycorrhizal strain and seed provenance in driving seed germination of a widespread terrestrial orchid. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi strongly influence the endorhizosphere of grapevine rootstock with soil type as a key factor. Synonymization of three species of Rhizophagus based on morphological and molecular evidence and biogeography of Rhizophagus clarus. The synergistic effect of Rhizophagus irregularis and Biochar on the growth of Switchgrass under sodium-saline-alkali stress: insights from soil mechanical property analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1