Paper · 2005 · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

Characterisation of dry and mucoid colonies isolated from Australian rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species

A. McInnes; P. Holford; J. E. Thies

12
claims
24
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The presence of dry and mucoid colonies in cultures of rhizobial strains used in the production of commercial Australian inoculants is of concern for quality assurance because of the possibility of altered capacity for nodulation and nitrogen fixation by the different colony types. In this study, single colony isolates obtained from dry and mucoid colonies present in commercial cultures of Sinorhizobium meliloti were investigated to identify stability in culture, genetic identity and changes in exopolysaccharide (EPS) production, nodulation and nitrogen fixation. The 2 strains studied were WSM688 and WSM826 (Australian inoculant strains for annual and perennial medics, respectively), both of which produced only mucoid colonies on agar media when originally isolated from nodules. Dry and mucoid single colony isolates from the ‘mother cultures’ of the 2 strains exhibited stable colony phenotypes during successive subculturing in our laboratory and were shown to be most closely related to S. meliloti using 16S rRNA partial sequencing. All isolates produced at least 1 of 3 exopolysaccharides (succinoglycan, EPS II and K antigen) that are required for successful nodulation of Medicago species by S. meliloti strains, as indicated by nodulation of host legumes. Strain WSM826 isolates probably produce succinoglycan, as shown by similarity to the succinoglycan-producing strain Rm1021 in a calcofluor binding assay. In contrast to published work, there was no evidence that loss of mucoidy in dry colony isolates of either strain was associated with the presence of an insertion sequence element in the expR gene that inhibits EPS II production. For strain WSM688, dry and mucoid isolates were identical by PCR fingerprinting and showed a similar capacity to nodulate and fix nitrogen with the target host legume M. truncatula in glasshouse tests. In contrast, strain WSM826 mucoid isolates produced PCR fingerprints that were different from each other and from the WSM826 dry colony isolates. Dry and mucoid colonies may have arisen from substantial genetic change or through contamination of cultures by other S. meliloti strains. One WSM826 mucoid isolate (826-3) produced significantly lower shoot dry weight when inoculated onto both the target host M. sativa and non-target host M. truncatula, even though the capacity to nodulate both hosts was retained. This suggests that this isolate was affected in its nitrogen fixation capacity. Further research is required to identify the origin and extent of colony variation in commercial S. meliloti cultures.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 12

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dry and mucoid isolates retained stable colony phenotypes through subculturing.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagot0
Interactor
rhizobialt0symbiont
Outcome
stable colony phenotypese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“Dry and mucoid single colony isolates from the ‘mother cultures’ of the 2 strains exhibited stable colony phenotypes during successive subculturing in our laboratory”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 790–955 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The isolates were most closely related to S. meliloti by partial 16S rRNA sequencing.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagot0
Interactor
S. melilotiSinorhizobium melilotie0symbiont
Outcome
most closely related to S. melilotie0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Sinorhizobium meliloti
Sinorhizobium meliloti · InteractorNinjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“were shown to be most closely related to S. meliloti using 16S rRNA partial sequencing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 960–1046 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All isolates produced at least one of three exopolysaccharides needed for Medicago nodulation.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagoe0
Interactor
S. melilotiSinorhizobium melilotie0symbiont
Outcome
at least 1 of 3 exopolysaccharidese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Sinorhizobium meliloti
Sinorhizobium meliloti · InteractorNinjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“All isolates produced at least 1 of 3 exopolysaccharides (succinoglycan, EPS II and K antigen) that are required for successful nodulation of Medicago species by S. meliloti strains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1048–1229 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

WSM826 isolates probably produce succinoglycan.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagot0
Interactor
WSM826e0symbiont
Outcome
probably produce succinoglycane0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“Strain WSM826 isolates probably produce succinoglycan, as shown by similarity to the succinoglycan-producing strain Rm1021 in a calcofluor binding assay”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1275–1427 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Loss of mucoidy was not associated with an expR insertion sequence in dry isolates of either strain.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagot0
Interactor
rhizobialt0symbiont
Gene
expR genee0
Outcome
loss of mucoidye0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“there was no evidence that loss of mucoidy in dry colony isolates of either strain was associated with the presence of an insertion sequence element in the expR gene”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1460–1625 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

WSM688 dry and mucoid isolates had identical PCR fingerprints.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagot0
Interactor
WSM688e0symbiont
Outcome
identical by PCR fingerprintinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“For strain WSM688, dry and mucoid isolates were identical by PCR fingerprinting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1659–1738 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

WSM688 dry and mucoid isolates had similar nodulation and nitrogen fixation capacity with M. truncatula.

Taxon
M. truncatulaMedicago truncatulae0
Interactor
WSM688e0symbiont
Outcome
similar capacity to nodulate and fix nitrogene0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago truncatula
Medicago truncatula · TaxonNinjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“For strain WSM688, dry and mucoid isolates were identical by PCR fingerprinting and showed a similar capacity to nodulate and fix nitrogen with the target host legume M. truncatula in glasshouse tests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1659–1859 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

WSM826 mucoid isolates had different PCR fingerprints from one another and from dry isolates.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagot0
Interactor
WSM826e0symbiont
Outcome
PCR fingerprints that were differente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“strain WSM826 mucoid isolates produced PCR fingerprints that were different from each other and from the WSM826 dry colony isolates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1874–2005 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation with WSM826 isolate 826-3 significantly lowered shoot dry weight of M. sativa.

Taxon
M. sativaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
inoculatede0
Interactor
WSM826 mucoid isolate (826-3)e0symbiont
Outcome
shoot dry weighte0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“One WSM826 mucoid isolate (826-3) produced significantly lower shoot dry weight when inoculated onto both the target host M. sativa and non-target host M. truncatula”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2146–2311 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation with WSM826 isolate 826-3 significantly lowered shoot dry weight of M. truncatula.

Taxon
M. truncatulaMedicago truncatulae0
Treatment
inoculatede0
Interactor
WSM826 mucoid isolate (826-3)e0symbiont
Outcome
shoot dry weighte0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago truncatula
Medicago truncatula · TaxonNinjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“One WSM826 mucoid isolate (826-3) produced significantly lower shoot dry weight when inoculated onto both the target host M. sativa and non-target host M. truncatula”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2146–2311 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

WSM826 isolate 826-3 retained capacity to nodulate both Medicago hosts.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagot0
Interactor
WSM826e0symbiont
Outcome
capacity to nodulate both hosts was retainede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“One WSM826 mucoid isolate (826-3) produced significantly lower shoot dry weight when inoculated onto both the target host M. sativa and non-target host M. truncatula, even though the capacity to nodulate both hosts was retained”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2146–2373 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced shoot weight suggests WSM826 isolate 826-3 had impaired nitrogen fixation capacity.

Taxon
Medicago speciesMedicagot0
Interactor
rhizobialt0symbiont
Outcome
nitrogen fixation capacitye0
Qualifier
This suggestse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago
Medicago · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ivar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rhizobial inoculant strains for Medicago species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“This suggests that this isolate was affected in its nitrogen fixation capacity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2375–2454 · show in text ↑

inoculation · growth · Medicago truncatula (barrel medic)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 9 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

inoculation · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

137 papers: 121 positive, 16 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 121 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

133 papers more in this group

See all 137 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.