Current Microbiology

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 117–125 | Cite as

Composition of Bacterial Communities Associated with a Plant–Parasitic Nematode Bursaphelenchus mucronatus

  • Xueliang Tian
  • Xinyue Cheng
  • Zhenchuan Mao
  • Guohua Chen
  • Jiarong Yang
  • Bingyan XieEmail author


Bursaphelenchus mucronatus is a plant–parasitic nematode widely existing in Eurasian pine forests. To analyze the diversity and role of bacteria associated with the nematode, culture-dependent and culture-independent methods were used to identify and characterize the composition of bacterial community. A total of 13 bacterial isolates were obtained from B. mucronatus by the culture-dependent method. Sixty-four species of bacteria were identified from two 16S rDNA clone libraries constructed from the nematodes of a Chinese and a Japanese population. These bacteria were clustered into four groups: Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, and Bacteroidetes. Comparison of the two libraries showed that the Chinese library had a higher diversity than that of the Japanese library, and the dominant group and species in each library were also different. In the Japanese library, Alphaproteobacteria group was obviously dominant (60.3%), and Rhizobium sp. was the most dominant species. Whereas in the Chinese library the proportion of each group was similar (from 19.4 to 23.6%), and Pedobacter sp. was a slightly dominant species. Moreover, 18 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were obtained from each of the two libraries according to a 97% sequence similarity. Metabolic analysis showed that 61.5 and 38.5% of the bacterial isolates could have protease and lipase activities, respectively. But only one had cellulase activity. Testing of reproductive parameter showed that the wild-type nematodes (bacteria carried) could produce more progeny than the bacterium-free nematodes did. So, we speculated that bacteria could promote the propagation and development of the nematode B. mucronatus.


Bacterial Community Bacteroidetes Gammaproteobacteria Parasitic Nematode Alphaproteobacteria 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was supported by the National Basic Research and Development Plan (2009CB119200). We are very grateful to John R. Shorter and Lauren E. Brierley for English-language editing. We also thank to Xia Yan for samples collection and Dr. Heng Jian for donating bacterium-free nematodes. This study was supported by the National Basic Research and Development Plan (2009CB119200).


  1. 1.
    Abad P, Tares S, Brugier N et al (1991) Characterization of the relationships in the pinewood nematode species complex (PWNSC) (Bursaphelenchus spp.) using a heterologous unc-22 DNA probe from Caenorhabditis elegans. Parasitology 102:303–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braasch H (1996) Pathogenitätstests mit Bursaphelenchus mucronatus an Kiefernund Fichtensämlingen in Deutschland Eruopean. J For Pathol 26:205–216Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cole JR, Chai B, Marsh TL et al (2003) The ribosomal database project (RDP-II): previewing a new auto aligner that allows regular updates and the new prokaryotic taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res 31:442–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Guiran G, Bruguier N (1989) Hybridization and phylogeny of the pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus spp.). Nematologica 35:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forst S, Dowds B, Boemare N et al (1997) Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus spp.: bugs that kill bugs. Ann Rev Microbiol 51:47–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haegeman A, Vanholme B, Jacob J et al (2009) An endosymbiotic bacterium in a plant-parasitic nematode: member of a new Wolbachia supergroup. Int J Parasitol 39:1045–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Han ZM, Hong YD, Zhao BG (2003) A study on pathogenicity of bacteria carried by pine wood nematodes. J Phytopathol 151:683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iwahori H, Kanzaki N, Futai K (2002) Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and B. mucronatus in Japan: where are they from? In: The fourth international congress of nematology, SpainGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones JT, Moens M, Mota M et al (2008) Bursaphelenchus xylophilus: opportunities in comparative genomics and molecular host-parasite interactions. Mol Plant Pathol 9:357–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawazu K, Kaneko N, Hiraoka K et al (1999) Reisolation of the pathogens from wilted red pine seedlings inoculated with the bacterium carrying nematode, and the cause of difference in pathogenicity among pine wood nematode isolates. Sci Rep Fac Agric Okayama Univ 88:1–5Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lane DJ (1991) 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M (eds) Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics. Wiley, Chichester, pp 115–175Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin F, Zhao BG (2006) Effects of bacterium on the propagation of pine wood nematodes. J Beijing For Univ 28:135–138Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin F, Zhao BG (2005) Effects of pine wood nematode on propagation of its carrying bacteria. Chin J Appl Ecol 16:24–76Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mamiya Y, Enda N (1979) Bursaphelenchus mucronatus n. sp. (Nematoda: Aphelenchoididae) from pinewood and its biology and pathogenicity to pine trees. Nematologica 25:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nour SM, Lawrence JR, Zhu H et al (2003) Bacteria associated with cysts of the soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines). Appl Environ Microbiol 69:607–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nussbaumer AD, Bright M, Baranyi C et al (2004) Attachment mechanism in a highly specific association between ectosymbiotic bacteria and marine nematodes. Aquat Microb Ecol 34:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rani A, Sharma A, Rajagopal R et al (2009) Bacterial diversity analysis of larvae and adult midgut micro-flora using culture-dependent and culture-independent methods in lab-reared and field-collected Anopheles stephensi-an Asian malarial vector. BMC microbiology 9:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schloss PD, Handelsman J (2005) Introducing DOTUR, a computer program for defining operational taxonomic units and estimating species richness. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:1501–1506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singleton DR, Furlong MA, Rathbun SL et al (2001) Quantitative comparisons of 16S rRNA gene sequence libraries from environmental samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4374–4376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Süleyman A, Beflir Y, Metin S et al (2007) Pathogenicity of Bursaphelenchus mucronatus in Pine seedlings under greenhouse conditions. Turk J Agric For 31:169–173Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M et al (2007) MEGA4: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol 24:1596–1599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor MJ, Bandi C, Hoerauf A (2005) Wolbachia bacterial endosymbionts of filarial nematodes. Adv Parasitol 60:245–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tomminen J (1993) Pathogenicity with Bursaphelenchus mucronatus in Scots pine in Finland. Eur J For Pathol 23:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Viglierchio DR, Schmitt RV (1983) On the methodology of nematode extraction from field samples: Baermann funnel modifications. J Nematol 15:438–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Webster JM, Anderson V (1990) DNA probes for differentiating isolates of the pinewood nematode species complex. Rev Nematol 13:255–263Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhao BG (2008) Bacteria carried by the pine wood nematode and their symbiotic relationship with the nematode. In: Zhao BG, Futai K, Sutherland JR, Takeuch Y (eds) Pine wilt disease, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, New York, pp 264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhao BG, Liu Y, Lin F (2006) Mutual influences in growth and reproduction between pine wood nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and bacteria it carries. Front For China 1:324–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhao BG, Liu YT, Lin F (2005) Mutual influences between Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and bacteria carries. J Nanjing For Univ 29:1–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xueliang Tian
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Xinyue Cheng
    • 3
  • Zhenchuan Mao
    • 2
  • Guohua Chen
    • 2
  • Jiarong Yang
    • 1
  • Bingyan Xie
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.College of Plant ProtectionNorthwest A & F UniversityYanglingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Vegetables and FlowersChinese Academy of Agricultural ScienceBeijingChina
  3. 3.College of Life SciencesBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  4. 4.College of Henan Institute of Science and TechnologyXinxiangChina

Personalised recommendations