Comparison of DNA and RNA, and Cultivation Approaches for the Recovery of Terrestrial and Aquatic Fungi from Environmental Samples

Estimates of fungal biodiversity from environmental samples are all subject to bias. Major issues are that the commonly adopted cultivation-based approaches are suitable for taxa which grow readily under laboratory conditions, while the DNA-based approaches provide more reliable estimates, but do no...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCurrent microbiology Vol. 66; no. 2; pp. 185 - 191
Main Authors Rao, Subramanya, Hyde, Kevin D, Pointing, Stephen B
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Springer-Verlag 01.02.2013
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Estimates of fungal biodiversity from environmental samples are all subject to bias. Major issues are that the commonly adopted cultivation-based approaches are suitable for taxa which grow readily under laboratory conditions, while the DNA-based approaches provide more reliable estimates, but do not indicate whether taxa are metabolically active. In this study, we have evaluated these approaches to estimate the fungal diversity in soil and freshwater samples from a subtropical forest, and compared these to RNA-based culture-independent approach intended to indicate the metabolically active fungal assemblage. In both soil and freshwater samples, the dominant taxon recovered by all three approaches was the same (Anguillospora furtiva). This taxon was cultivable from all samples and comprised 85–86 % DNA libraries and 90–91 % RNA libraries. The remaining taxa were phylogenetically diverse and spanned the Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, and Fungi incertae sedis. Their recovery was not consistent among the three approaches used and suggests that less abundant members of the assemblage may be subjected to greater bias when diversity estimates employ a single approach.
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00284-012-0256-7
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0343-8651
1432-0991
1432-0991
DOI:10.1007/s00284-012-0256-7