I'm working with Podocarpaceae rootlet nodules and want to identify the mycorrhizae inhabiting them. Wouldn't sequencing with appropriate primers be the most ideal method for this? There's no guarantee that the spores found in the soil belong to the same species colonizing nodules.
There is no better option than sequencing for identification of AM species, and you are right , not necessary all AM spores are equally effective root colonizers...
Spores are one of most important convenient characteristic features, they can help research in identification mycorrhizae rapidly and faster than sequence techniques
@ Natalia, I think DNA sequencing data have now successfully been used for identification of AM species. The spore identification method is very tedious.
Spores of AM fungi have multiple nuclei (and so does their mycelium) and those nuclei often don't have the same DNA sequences. The ITS region is too variable for identification of AM mycorrhizae. More conserved regions of the SSU and LSU are used for AMF identification. Also note that you could get multiple chromatograms and IDs from the same mycorrhizal root tip, some from the same organism/individual or from different individuals of different species.
Spores help in fast identification of mycorrhizal fungi. we can identify even with limited resources.
I am really surprised with answers suggesting classical taxonomy as a tedious science. This is far from true! We have a lot of papers showing strong advances in methods to delimit AMF species based on morphological and phylogenetic concept. We just starting to understand the evolutionary history of Glomeromycota. The robust molecular/phylogenetically identification is better understanding when supported by strong morphological evidences. We can not forgot that good sequences belongs to type species or from isolates with robust morphological identification. The molecular/phylogenetic task is very useful and open a new door to taxonomy and systematic of Glomeromycota but do not exist as a sciences without a strong classical taxonomy.
When we want to identify arbuscular mycorrhizae we need both of morphological features and sequencing.
Arbuscular Mycorrhizae fungi recently belong to the phylum Glomeromycota.
It may seem absurd, but sequencing isn't a reality for many researchers, especially those in developing countries, where there is no incentive or scientific funding by the government. So we must make of these lemons, lemonade and there should be no problem with that. For me, most of the Journals and editors-in-chief should take this into account before rejecting good research due to the lack of sample sequencing. And I totally agree with Dr. Bruno Tomio Goto: classical taxonomy IS NOT A tedious science, but on the contrary, necessary. We are training researchers who do not even know how to differentiate fungal phyla, forgetting the science of taxonomy, instead of uniting both in favor of a bigger and better Mycology. As Dr. Goto said, "the molecular/phylogenetic task is very useful and opens a new door to taxonomy and systematics of Glomeromycota [and other fungal taxa] but do not exist as science without a strong classical taxonomy". I don't know your reality (funding or laboratory structure), but if you can do it, go, do it. But if a piece of advice is welcome, you must also proceed with classic taxonomy, not only for your work aims but for your mycological formation, after all.
Well said Bruno Tomio Goto , I agree with you. With strong base of classical taxonomy , these developments in molecular techniques won't be so precisive .
Thorough study of the morphological and taxonomical characteristics of the AM species associated should be done before sequencing with appropriate primers. The colonization percentage and the density of the individual species relates with dominance of the species colonized in roots.
Both classical and modern techniques are essential for the identification of AMF.
Both methods are useful in their own way.
Good morning to everybody. I fully agree with Dr. Goto and Dr. Calaça. We fully understand that the molecular / phylogenetic task is very useful and open a new door to taxonomy. But imagine, for example, if we had waited to sequence Scutellospora tepuiensis without having the resources to do so, a species so conspicuous and worth knowing by the international scientific community. Science is directed like this, you must make the species known with all the morphological attributes that you must give. If in the future molecular techniques prove that it must belong to another genus, it will be modified and science will move on
Hi Natalia
the characterization of spores is useful to distinguish among Mycorrhiza
This references is useful for you
Article Molecular identification of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal sp...
I think that we strongly need to know the morphological features of spores of FAM to distinguish among different species, then we confirm this result by using sequencing. Therefore I can say that both of classical and molecular methods are necessary for identification.
Yes its true that molecular identification has becoming a promising tool for the identification of microorganisms but in case of mycorrhiza we are exploring the concept. Some evidencing revealing that the same species of mycorrhizae may have different spore morphology or appearance, colour size and shape based on the environmental conditions hence it is advisable to use both morphological characteristics and molecular sequence.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India