Genetic diversity and differential in vitro responses to Ni in Cenococcum geophilum isolates from serpentine soils in Portugal.
Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis was used to investigate the genetic diversity in isolates of the ectomycorrhizal fungus Cenococcum geophilum from serpentine and non-serpentine soils in Portugal. A high degree of genetic diversity was found among C. geophilum isolates; AFLP fingerprints showed that all the isolates were genetically distinct. We also assessed the in vitro Ni sensitivity in three serpentine isolates and one non-serpentine isolate. Only the non-serpentine isolate was significantly affected by the addition of Ni to the growth medium. At 30 microg g(-1) Ni, radial growth rate and biomass accumulation decreased to 73.3 and 71.6% of control, respectively, a highly significant inhibitory effect. Nickel at this concentration had no significant inhibitory effect on serpentine isolates, and so the fitness of serpentine isolates, as evaluated by radial growth rate and biomass yield, is likely unaffected by Ni in the field. In all isolates, the Ni concentration in the mycelia increased with increasing Ni concentration in the growth medium, but two profiles of Ni accumulation were identified. One serpentine isolate showed a linear trend of Ni accumulation. At the highest Ni exposure, the concentration of Ni in the mycelium of this isolate was in the hyperaccumulation range for Ni as defined for higher plants. In the remaining isolates, Ni accumulation was less pronounced and seems to approach a plateau at 30 microg g(-1) Ni. Because two profiles of Ni accumulation emerged among our Ni-insensitive serpentine isolates, this result suggests that different Ni detoxification pathways may be operating. The non-serpentine isolate whose growth was significantly affected by Ni was separated from the other isolates in the genetic analysis, suggesting a genetic basis for the Ni-sensitivity trait. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that all isolates were maintained on medium without added Ni to avoid carry-over effects. However, because AFLP analysis failed to distinguish between serpentine and non-serpentine isolates, we cannot conclude that Ni insensitivity among our serpentine isolates is due to evolutionary adaptation. Screening a larger number of isolates, from different geographical origins and environments, should clarify the relationships between genetic diversity, morphology, and physiology in this important species.
Gonçalves
Susana C
SC
Centro de Ecologia Funcional, Departamento de Botânica, Universidade de Coimbra, 3000-456, Coimbra, Portugal. scgoncal@ci.uc.pt.
Portugal
António
A
Centro de Ecologia Funcional, Departamento de Botânica, Universidade de Coimbra, 3000-456, Coimbra, Portugal.
Gonçalves
M Teresa
MT
Centro de Ecologia Funcional, Departamento de Botânica, Universidade de Coimbra, 3000-456, Coimbra, Portugal.
Vieira
Rita
R
Centro de Ecologia Funcional, Departamento de Botânica, Universidade de Coimbra, 3000-456, Coimbra, Portugal.
Martins-Loução
M Amélia
MA
Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Faculdade de Ciências, Centro de Ecologia e Biologia Vegetal, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, 1749-016, Portugal.|Museu Nacional de História Natural, Jardim Botânico, 1250-102, Lisboa, Portugal.
Freitas
Helena
H
Centro de Ecologia Funcional, Departamento de Botânica, Universidade de Coimbra, 3000-456, Coimbra, Portugal.
D054458:Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism Analysis; D001203:Ascomycota / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics* / Q000302:isolation & purification / Q000378:metabolism; D004271:DNA, Fungal / Q000737:chemistry / Q000235:genetics; D014644:Genetic Variation; D038821:Mycorrhizae / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics* / Q000302:isolation & purification / Q000378:metabolism; D009532:Nickel / Q000494:pharmacology*; D011174:Portugal; D029963:Quercus / Q000382:microbiology*; D012988:Soil Microbiology; D014197:Trees / Q000382:microbiology*
D004271:DNA, Fungal; C029938:nickel sulfate; D009532:Nickel
Mycol Res. 2003 Nov;107(Pt 11):1253-65
15000228
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Sep;38(9):3329-36
10970379
Microbios. 1991;67(272-273):177-86
1779877
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1990 Jan 1;54(1-3):333-8
2182379
Mycorrhiza. 2005 Nov;15(8):628-34
16133247
New Phytol. 2005 Apr;166(1):263-71
15760369
Mol Ecol. 2001 Aug;10(8):1855-71
11555231
Nucleic Acids Res. 1995 Nov 11;23(21):4407-14
7501463
J Ind Microbiol. 1995 Feb;14(2):164-8
7766209
Mol Ecol. 2005 Sep;14(10):2899-914
16101761
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 Oct;76(10):5269-73
291943
New Phytol. 2005 Jun;166(3):1011-23
15869659
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Oct;6(2):287-94
8899729
New Phytol. 2007;174(1):151-8
17335505
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1984 Sep;48(3):556-60
16346623
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006 Jan;254(2):173-81
16445743
Nucleic Acids Res. 1992 Nov 25;20(22):6115-6
1461751
Mycologia. 2002 Sep-Oct;94(5):772-80
21156551
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Dec;70(12):7413-7
15574943