Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Leite, Luís Garrigós, Polanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP], Suzuki, Marise Tanaka, Freitas, Raquel De Paula, Bueno, Roselaine Nunes Da Silva, Silva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000102016
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/213204
Resumo: Bacillus has been widely studied and used for the control of pests and diseases. The adapted protocol proposed by POLANCZYK (2004) proved to be more efficient than the one by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1985) to isolate edaphic strains of Bacillus. However, it has not been assessed for isolation of endophytic strains, which are much less abundant in the nature and more difficult to be isolated. This study aimed to compare two methodological procedures for isolation of Bacillus, established by the WHO (1985) and by POLANCZYK (2004), regarding their efficiency for isolation of endophytics and edaphics Bacillus strains from inside the root tissue of sugarcane, as well as from the associated soil sample, collected from 11 locations; and to compare the density of bacteria in both environments. Endophytic and edaphic strains of Bacillus were isolated by both procedures. However, the isolation protocol performed by POLANCZYK (2004) made more efficient by having a greater number of colony forming units (CFU) per gram of soil and root indicating that this procedure is more useful, especially for isolation of endophytic strains of Bacillus, which are much less abundant in the nature than edaphic strains, being therefore more difficult to be isolated. Using the Polanczyk protocol (2004), Bacillus strains were recovered from all roots (endophytic) and soil (edaphic) samples of all the 11 fields, suggesting that the plant root may be another important source for isolation of Bacillus besides the soil. Higher densities of Bacillus were isolated from the edaphic environment compared with the endophytic environment, with significant differences when isolated by Polanczyk method (2004).
id UNSP_77be2b10cd07a103f13344ecc16387b6
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/213204
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fieldsDois métodos para isolamento de Bacillus spp. endofíticos e edáficos de canaviaisbiological controlbeneficial bacteriasoilrootendosporecontrole biológicobactéria benéficasoloraizendósporosBacillus has been widely studied and used for the control of pests and diseases. The adapted protocol proposed by POLANCZYK (2004) proved to be more efficient than the one by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1985) to isolate edaphic strains of Bacillus. However, it has not been assessed for isolation of endophytic strains, which are much less abundant in the nature and more difficult to be isolated. This study aimed to compare two methodological procedures for isolation of Bacillus, established by the WHO (1985) and by POLANCZYK (2004), regarding their efficiency for isolation of endophytics and edaphics Bacillus strains from inside the root tissue of sugarcane, as well as from the associated soil sample, collected from 11 locations; and to compare the density of bacteria in both environments. Endophytic and edaphic strains of Bacillus were isolated by both procedures. However, the isolation protocol performed by POLANCZYK (2004) made more efficient by having a greater number of colony forming units (CFU) per gram of soil and root indicating that this procedure is more useful, especially for isolation of endophytic strains of Bacillus, which are much less abundant in the nature than edaphic strains, being therefore more difficult to be isolated. Using the Polanczyk protocol (2004), Bacillus strains were recovered from all roots (endophytic) and soil (edaphic) samples of all the 11 fields, suggesting that the plant root may be another important source for isolation of Bacillus besides the soil. Higher densities of Bacillus were isolated from the edaphic environment compared with the endophytic environment, with significant differences when isolated by Polanczyk method (2004).Bacillus tem sido amplamente estudado e usado para o controle de pragas e doenças. O protocolo adaptado proposto por POLANCZYK (2004) mostrou-se mais eficiente do que o da Organização Mundial de Saúde (WHO, 1985) para isolar cepas edáficas de Bacillus. No entanto, não foi avaliado quanto ao isolamento de estirpes endofíticas, que são muito menos abundantes na natureza e mais difíceis de isolar. Este estudo teve como objetivos comparar dois procedimentos metodológicos para o isolamento de Bacillus, o estabelecido pela OMS (WHO, 1985) e o de POLANCZYK (2004), quanto a sua eficiência para o isolamento de estirpes endofitas e edáficas de Bacillus originárias do interior do tecido radicular de cana-de-açúcar, bem como de amostras de solos associados, coletada de 11 locais; e comparar a densidade de bactérias em ambos os ambientes. As cepas endofíticas e edáficas de Bacillus foram isoladas por ambos os procedimentos. No entanto, o protocolo de isolamento realizado por POLANCZYK (2004) demonstrou-se mais eficiente por gerar maior número de unidades de formação de colônias (CFU) por grama de solo e raiz, indicando que esse procedimento é mais útil, especialmente para isolamento de estirpes endofíticas de Bacillus, que são muito menos abundantes na natureza do que as cepas edáficas, sendo, portanto, mais difíceis de serem isoladas. Usando o protocolo de POLANCZYK (2004), as cepas de Bacillus foram isoladas de todas as amostras de raízes (endofíticas) e de solo (edáficas) de todos os 11 campos, sugerindo que a raiz da planta pode ser outra fonte importante de isolamento de Bacillus além do solo. As densidades mais altas de Bacillus foram isoladas do ambiente edáfico em comparação com o ambiente endofítico, com diferenças significativas quando isoladas pelo método de POLANCZYK (2004).Instituto Biológico, Centro ExperimentalUniversidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Faculdade de Ciências Agrarias e VeterináriasCentro Universitario de GurupiInstituto Agronômico de Campinas, Centro de Solos e Recursos AgroambientaisUniversidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Faculdade de Ciências Agrarias e VeterináriasInstituto BiológicoInstituto BiológicoUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Centro Universitario de GurupiInstituto Agronômico de CampinasFerreira, Maria Elízia PachecoLeite, Luís GarrigósPolanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP]Suzuki, Marise TanakaFreitas, Raquel De PaulaBueno, Roselaine Nunes Da SilvaSilva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da2021-07-14T10:51:41Z2021-07-14T10:51:41Z2018-01-22info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000102016Arquivos do Instituto Biológico. Instituto Biológico, v. 84, p. -, 2018.1808-1657http://hdl.handle.net/11449/21320410.1590/1808-1657000102016S1808-16572017000100220S1808-16572017000100220.pdfSciELOreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengArquivos do Instituto Biológicoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-06-06T15:50:41Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/213204Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-06-06T15:50:41Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
Dois métodos para isolamento de Bacillus spp. endofíticos e edáficos de canaviais
title Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
spellingShingle Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco
biological control
beneficial bacteria
soil
root
endospore
controle biológico
bactéria benéfica
solo
raiz
endósporos
title_short Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
title_full Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
title_fullStr Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
title_full_unstemmed Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
title_sort Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
author Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco
author_facet Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco
Leite, Luís Garrigós
Polanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP]
Suzuki, Marise Tanaka
Freitas, Raquel De Paula
Bueno, Roselaine Nunes Da Silva
Silva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da
author_role author
author2 Leite, Luís Garrigós
Polanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP]
Suzuki, Marise Tanaka
Freitas, Raquel De Paula
Bueno, Roselaine Nunes Da Silva
Silva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Biológico
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Centro Universitario de Gurupi
Instituto Agronômico de Campinas
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco
Leite, Luís Garrigós
Polanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP]
Suzuki, Marise Tanaka
Freitas, Raquel De Paula
Bueno, Roselaine Nunes Da Silva
Silva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv biological control
beneficial bacteria
soil
root
endospore
controle biológico
bactéria benéfica
solo
raiz
endósporos
topic biological control
beneficial bacteria
soil
root
endospore
controle biológico
bactéria benéfica
solo
raiz
endósporos
description Bacillus has been widely studied and used for the control of pests and diseases. The adapted protocol proposed by POLANCZYK (2004) proved to be more efficient than the one by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1985) to isolate edaphic strains of Bacillus. However, it has not been assessed for isolation of endophytic strains, which are much less abundant in the nature and more difficult to be isolated. This study aimed to compare two methodological procedures for isolation of Bacillus, established by the WHO (1985) and by POLANCZYK (2004), regarding their efficiency for isolation of endophytics and edaphics Bacillus strains from inside the root tissue of sugarcane, as well as from the associated soil sample, collected from 11 locations; and to compare the density of bacteria in both environments. Endophytic and edaphic strains of Bacillus were isolated by both procedures. However, the isolation protocol performed by POLANCZYK (2004) made more efficient by having a greater number of colony forming units (CFU) per gram of soil and root indicating that this procedure is more useful, especially for isolation of endophytic strains of Bacillus, which are much less abundant in the nature than edaphic strains, being therefore more difficult to be isolated. Using the Polanczyk protocol (2004), Bacillus strains were recovered from all roots (endophytic) and soil (edaphic) samples of all the 11 fields, suggesting that the plant root may be another important source for isolation of Bacillus besides the soil. Higher densities of Bacillus were isolated from the edaphic environment compared with the endophytic environment, with significant differences when isolated by Polanczyk method (2004).
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-01-22
2021-07-14T10:51:41Z
2021-07-14T10:51:41Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000102016
Arquivos do Instituto Biológico. Instituto Biológico, v. 84, p. -, 2018.
1808-1657
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/213204
10.1590/1808-1657000102016
S1808-16572017000100220
S1808-16572017000100220.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000102016
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/213204
identifier_str_mv Arquivos do Instituto Biológico. Instituto Biológico, v. 84, p. -, 2018.
1808-1657
10.1590/1808-1657000102016
S1808-16572017000100220
S1808-16572017000100220.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Arquivos do Instituto Biológico
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv -
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Biológico
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Biológico
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv SciELO
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1803649860470046720