Back

Endophytic and ectomycorrhizal, an overlooked dual ecological niche? Insights from natural environments and Russula species

Laurent-Webb, L.; Rech, P.; Bourceret, A.; Chaumenton, C.; Deveau, A.; Genola, L.; Januario, M.; Petrolli, R.; Selosse, M.-A.

2024-01-24 microbiology
10.1101/2024.01.24.576884 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LIEctomycorrhizal (EcM) fungi play key roles in ecosystem functioning, in particular temperate ones. Recent findings suggest that they can endophytically colonize the roots of non-EcM plants. Here we aim at (i) providing new evidence of colonization of non-EcM hosts by EcM fungi, (ii) exploring factors driving such colonization (plant identity, site, root filter), and (iii) providing direct microscopical evidence for endophytism. C_LIO_LIUsing amplicon sequencing (ITS2), we described the root fungal communities of 42 plant species collected at nine locations in France. In two of those sites, we also compared rhizosphere and root fungal communities to identify a potential root filter. Finally, we investigated endophytism in Russula spp. at two Russula-rich sites using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) paired with confocal microscopy. C_LIO_LIWe find a large but variable share of EcM sequences in roots of non-EcM plant species, in particular nearby EcM hosts, suggesting that endophytism is a secondary ecological niche. Though EcM fungi were more abundant in the rhizosphere compared to roots, their composition was similar to that of roots, suggesting a poor root filter. We observed metabolically active hyphae of Russula spp. endophytically colonizing the apoplast of two non-EcM plant species. C_LIO_LIAs shown for other EcM fungi (e.g., Tuber spp., Ascomycota) we demonstrate the dual EcM/endophyte niche for Russula (Basidiomycota). The ecological consequences of this duality still need to be addressed. The ability to colonize two ecological niches may be a trait kept by EcM fungi which evolved from endophytic fungi, as stipulated by the "waiting room hypothesis". C_LI

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.7%
2
Environmental Microbiology Reports
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
3
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.8%
4
Environmental Microbiome
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Microbiological Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 37%
4.0%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
8
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.1%
10
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
11
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
12
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 26%
2.4%
13
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 36%
2.1%
14
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
15
The ISME Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
16
Phytobiomes Journal
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
17
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
18
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
19
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.3%
20
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
21
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
22
Phytopathology®
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
23
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.9%
24
Nature Microbiology
133 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
Plant and Soil
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
28
Yeast
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
29
Microbiome
139 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Cell Host & Microbe
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%