Open Access

fAFLP analysis of Brazilian Bacillus thuringiensis isolates

  • Fernando Hercos Valicente1Email author and
  • Rosane Bezerra da Silva2
SpringerPlus20143:256

https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-256

Received: 25 October 2013

Accepted: 10 April 2014

Published: 20 May 2014

Abstract

A total of 65 Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) isolates were subjected to analysis of genetic relationship using fAFLP (fluorescent Fragment Length Polymorphism), in order to determine the genetic diversity within a group of Bt strains. 26 strains from different subspecies were identified as it follows: 9 kindly provided by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), 9 kindly provided by the Institute Pasteur and eight from Embrapa Maize and Sorghum Bt Collection, and 39 strains with no subspecies information also from Embrapa’s Bt Collection. DNA sample was double digested with restriction enzymes Eco RI and Mse I, and the fragments were linked to adapters. Selective amplification reactions were performed using five primer combinations and the amplified fragments were separated by gel electrophoresis on an ABI377 sequencer. Genetic distances were obtained by the complement of the Jaccard coefficient and the groups were performed by the UPGMA method. Five primer combinations generated 495 scorable fragments and 483 were found to be polymorphic. Out of 26 subspecies, strains 344 and T09 (B. thuringiensis subsp. tolworthi) showed the highest similarity (15%), while isolates HD3 B. thuringiensis subsp finitimus and T24 B. thuringiensis subsp neoleonensis were the most genetically distant (92%). B. thuringiensis isolates with no subspecies identification, found in samples from Goiás State showed higher similarity forming a group with an average distance of 6%, and the closest subspecies to this group was B. thuringiensis subsp thuringiensis (HD2) with 52% of similarity. This similarity may be due to the fact that these organism exchange genetic material by conjugation, and it is relatively common to have evolutionary characteristics of their ancestors.

Keywords

AFLP Genetic diversity Bacillus thuringiensis Restriction enzymes

Background

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a rod-shaped, Gram-positive soil bacterium characterized by its ability to produce crystalline inclusions called “Cry proteins, Cry toxins or Bt toxins” during sporulation. The crystalline inclusions along with the spores have a high potential to control a great number of insect pests belonging to the order Lepidoptera, Diptera and Coleoptera (Vidyarthi et al. 2002; Yamamoto and Dean 2000). B. thuringiensis can be found in different substrates such as soil, water, plant surfaces, dead insects, grain dust, and stored grain (Glare and O’Callaghan 2000; Valicente and Barreto 2003), and it is a useful alternative or zment to synthetic chemical pesticide applications in commercial agriculture, horticulture, forest management, and mosquito control (De Maagd et al. 1999). B. thuringiensis also has high genetic variability and are widely distributed in nature (Vilas-Boas et al. 2002 Martin and Travers 1989 Hossain et al. 1997). The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has been used to identify specific cry genes and characterize B. thuringiensis strains with a high degree of success (Chak et al. 1994; Cerón et al. 19941995; Shangkuan et al. 2001; Lima et al. 2002; Valicente et al., 2010).

The Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) technique is based on the detection of genomic restriction fragments by PCR amplification, and can be used for DNAs of any origin or complexity (Vos et al. 1995). AFLP may be used as a tool for bacterial taxonomy and has shown utility in detecting molecular variability in very closely related bacterial strains (Jansen et al. 1997; Burke et al. 2004; Grady et al. 2001). The fAFLP (flurescent Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism) use markers with fluorescent substances, the use of primers labeled with a fluorochrome, associated with automatic sequencers and a large capacity for computational analysis (Ryu et al. 2005; Burke et al. 2004).

Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) is responsible for significant losses in maize production in Brazil. Its control is mainly achieved using chemical insecticides. However, biological control using B. thuringiensis and the production of genetically modified plants with insect resistance genes are excellent alternatives to control this insect (Valicente and Barreto 2003).

The purpose of the present study was to use fAFLP for molecular analysis and characterization of B. thuringiensis strains that were previously tested against S. frugiperd a, and to determine the degree of genetic variability and correlation between different genotypes of public strains of B. thuringiensis and strains sampled in different Brazilian regions.

Materials and methods

B. thuringiensis strains

Of a total of 65 B. thuringiensis strains used in this research (Table 1), 26 strains from different subspecies were identified as it follows: 9 kindly provided by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), 9 kindly provided by the Institute Pasteur and eight from Embrapa Maize and Sorghum Bt Collection. Also, 39 strains with no subspecies information also from Embrapa’s Bt Collection (Table 1). The words subspecies and serovar were used interchangeably as given by Zeigler (1999). All strains have been previously tested against fall armyworm, S. frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae J.E. Smith) (Valicente and Fonseca 2004; Valicente and Barreto 2003), and showed different toxicity activity. These strains are stored in glycerol in a freezer at – 20°C.
Table 1

Bacillus thuringiensis serovars used in this study, with mortality against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda

Bt subspecies

Strain identification

Mortality (%)*

Origin

Strain identification

Mortality (%)*

Origin

1

alesti

HD-4

6.8

USA

34

1109 N

100

Goiás State/Brazil

2

alesti

348B

100

Paraná State/Brazil

35

1145B

100

Goiás State/Brazil

3

aizawai

T-07

80.8

France

36

1145C

100

Goiás State/Brazil

4

aizawai

HD-11

7.8

USA

37

1148 F

100

Goiás State/Brazil

5

galleriae

462A

100

Paraná State/Brazil

38

1132E

100

Goiás State/Brazil

6

galleriae

474

100

Paraná State/Brazil

39

1135B

100

Goiás State/Brazil

7

galleriae

348 L

100

Paraná State/Brazil

40

1136B

100

Goiás State/Brazil

8

galleriare

HD-29

12.8

USA

41

1139 K

100

Goiás State/Brazil

9

tolworthi

344

100

Paraná State/Brazil

42

BTLM

100

Goiás State/Brazil

10

tolworthi

T-09

100

Françe

43

1644

100

Paraná State/Brazil

11

tolworthi

426

100

Ceará State/Brazil

44

1641

100

Paraná State/Brazil

12

tolworthi

461A

100

Paraná State/Brazil

45

701A

100

São Paulo State/Brazil

13

darmstadiensis

460

100

Paraná State/Brazil

46

1658

100

São Paulo State/Brazil

14

darmstadiensis

T-10

77.9

France

47

1646

100

São Paulo State/Brazil

15

entomocidus

T-06

9.8

France

48

701B

100

São Paulo State/Brazil

16

neoleonensis

T-24

17.9

France

49

1648

100

São Paulo State/Brazil

17

mexicanensis

T-27

17

France

50

1438

100

Sergipe State/Brazil

18

japonensis

T-23

33.5

France

51

1438H

100

Sergipe State/Brazil

19

indiana

T-16

12.2

France

52

1089E

95.8

Minas Gerais/State/Brazil

20

kurstaki

HD-73

2.7

USA

53

1091H

95.8

Minas Gerais State/Brazil

21

kurstaki

HD-1

0

USA

54

1604D

95.2

Amazônia State/Brazil

22

morrisoni

HD-12

28

USA

55

1605

95.2

Amazônia State/Brazil

23

dendrolimus

HD-7

5.4

USA

56

1657

100

Amazônia State/Brazil

24

finitimus

HD-3

5.2

USA

57

1656

100

Alagoas State/Brazil

25

thuringiensis

HD-2

37.8

USA

58

1603B

100

Santa Catarina State/Brazil

26

israelensis

T-14

0

France

59

1626C

97.6

Maranhão State/Brazil

27

 

1119C

100

Goiás State/Brazil

60

702

97.6

Mato Grosso State/Brazil

28

 

1124E

100

Goiás State/Brazil

61

1354

100

Minas Gerais State/Brazil

29

 

1131A

100

Goiás State/Brazil

62

1355SLO

100

Minas Gerais State/Brazil

30

 

1131C

100

Goiás State/Brazil

63

1357E

100

Paraná State/Brazil

31

 

1132A

100

Goiás State/Brazil

64

566

100

Paraná State/Brazil

32

 

1132C

100

Goiás State/Brazil

65

1355LM

100

Minas Gerais State/Brazil

33

 

1138G

100

Goiás State/Brazil

    

* Mortality results from Valicente and Barreto 2003 and Valicente and Fonseca 2004.

Bacterial cultures

B. thuringiensis isolates were inoculated into 5 ml LB medium enriched with salts and glucose (all expressed in g.l−1, 0.002 g of FeSO4, 0.02 g of ZnSO4, 0.02 g of MnSO4, 0.3 g of MgSO4) and 2% glucose, with pH adjusted to 7.2. The shaking flasks were incubated at a stirrer speed of 250 rpm for 16 h at 28°C. Colonies were observed on a phase contrast microscope.

DNA extraction

Genomic DNA from B. thuringiensis strains was isolated and purified according to Shuhaimi et al. (2001) with modifications. A volume of 5 ml of an overnight culture was centrifuged at 4600 g for 5 min. The pellet was washed with sterile distilled water and resuspended in 700 μl glucose/Tris/EDTA buffer (50 mM glucose, 25 mM Tris/HCl and 10 mM EDTA, pH 8). Lysozyme was added to the bacterial suspension at 20 mg/ml and incubated at 37°C for 30 min. The cells were additionally lysed by adding 15 μl 20% (w/v) SDS. Five μl of proteinase K at 20 mg/ml was added and incubated at 65°C for 1 h to complete protein digestion. Five hundred μl of Phenol/chloroform/isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1 by vol.) was added and centrifuged at 12.000 g for 1 min. Three hundred μl of the aqueous upper layer was then transferred into a sterile new tube and an equal volume of 3 M potassium acetate (pH 5.2), and a double volume of 2-propanol were added. The mixture was then centrifuged at 12.000 g for 7 min. The supernatant was carefully discarded. The pellet was washed with 70% (v/v) ethanol by centrifuging at 12.000 g for 5 min. The ethanol was discarded and the pellet containing the chromosomal DNA resuspended in 150 μl of Tris-EDTA pH 8.0 (10 mM Tris–HCl, 1 mM EDTA) and stored at −20°C until further use.

fAFLP analysis of DNA samples

The fAFLP reactions were performed using to the Applied Biosystems AFLP™ microbial fingerprinting Kit with the genomic DNA (500 ng) being digested with 5U Eco RI and 2,5 U of Mse I (Invitrogen®, Carlsbad, CA, EUA) in 1,25 μl of buffer 10× with final volume of 10 uL. After the digestions, were added 1 μl of Eco RI and Mse I adapters (2 mM), 1.5 U of T4 DNA ligase buffer with T4 DNA ligase of (50 mM Tris–HCl, pH 7.8, 10 mM MgCl2, 10 mM dithiothreitol, 1 mM ATP, 25 g/ml bovine serum albumin). The binding reactions were conducted at 20°C for 2 h, and amplicons produced were dissolved in 30 μl of TE buffer (10 mM Tris–HCl, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) and used as template in pre-selective amplification reactions. The binding sites of pre-selective primers are the sequences of the adapters of restriction sites that provide a selection of restriction fragments obtained. The reactions were obtained using a 2 μl of diluted DNA, 7.5 μl of Core Mix and 0.5 μl of Eco RI primers (1 μM) and Mse I (5 mM) were considered as pre-selective. Amplification conditions were: 72°C for 2 minutes, 20 cycles starting at 94°C for 20 s, 56°C for 30 s and 72°C for 2 minutes. Products amplification were electrophoresed on 0.8% agarose gels and subsequently stained colored with ethidium bromide (0.5 mg/ml), and observations about the presence of bands at most of 500 bp. The pre-amplified products were diluted (1:15) with TE buffer and 1.5 μl were used in the pre-amplification reaction along with 7.5 μl of buffer, nucleotides and AmpliTaq® DNA polymerase, a mixture called “Core Mix, 0.5 μl of the Mse I primer (5 μM) and 0.5 μl of Eco RI primer, labeled with fluorescence (1 μM). Selective amplifications were performed in 20 μl reactions with the following steps: 94°C for 30 s, 65°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 1 min for 1 cycle and then lowering the annealing temperature by 1°C each cycle to 56°C, followed by an additional 20 cycles at a 56°C. Five primer combinations were used in the selective amplification (Eco RI -AC + Mse I -CG; Eco RI -G + Mse I -CC; Eco RI -C + Mse I -G; Eco RI −0 + Mse I -CG; Eco RI -C + Mse I -CG).

Sequencing eletrophoresis of polyacrylamide gel and data analysis

Each sample was loaded onto a 5% Long-Ranger denaturing gel which was run in an ABI PRISMTM 377 DNA Sequencer (PE-Applied Biosystems) for 4 h at 2,500 V. The electrophoresis images obtained from each reaction were analyzed using the GENESCAN program version 3.1 (Applied Biosystems). The Genotyper program version 2.5 (Applied Biosystems) was used to check the presence (coded as 1) or absence (coded as 0) of polymorphic bands in the electropherograms, and produce a binary matrix and the GENES program version 2008 (Cruz 2001). The genetic relationships among strains were evaluated using a matrix of genetic distances using the complement of the Jaccard similarity coefficient (CSJ), that does not consider negative similarities and the absence of the product (Cruz and Carneiro 2006). From estimates of the dissimilarities, the lines were grouped using hierarchical UPGMA method (Unweighted Pair-Group Mean Average) with the test of bootstrap (1000 times) to evaluate the consistency of the group (Efron and Tibshirani 1993).

Results and discussion

In this study we have examined the genetic variation among isolates of B. thuringiensis. fAFLP markers generated excellent results in characterizing molecular diversity and genetic relationship within the species of tropical isolates of B. thuringiensis. A total of 495 scorable fragments were generated, ranging from 50 to 500 bp, in the 65 B. thuringiensis strains when 5 primer combinations were used. Out of 495 fragments 483 were found to be polymorphic, and only 12 fragments were monomorphic (Table 2), and 7 of these fragments were generated by the primer combination EcoR1-G + Mse1-CC. Our results showed that the Eco RI primer with selective nucleotide Mse1-C and Mse1-CG generated the greatest number of fragments, 130 and 113, respectively. However, Eco RI primer with selective nucleotide AC and C with selective nucleotide Mse1-CG generated fewer fragments, 77 and 79, respectively.
Table 2

AFLP primer combinations used for the fingerprinting of Bt serovars strains.

Primer combination

Number of fragments

Number of polymorphic fragments

* EcoR1- AC + Mse1 - CG

77

74

* EcoR1-G + Mse1- CC

96

89

* EcoR1-C + Mse1 = G

130

129

* EcoR1-0 + Mse1-CG

113

112

* EcoR1-C + Mse1-CG

79

79

*AFLP primer combinations.

Genetic distances were obtained using the complement of the Jaccard similarity coefficient (CSJ), and the grouping using hierarchical UPGMA method. Genomic AFLP markers were analyzed through UPGMA cluster analysis to determine the genetic relationship among B. thuringiensis isolates (Figure 1). Out of 26 subspecies, strains 344 and T09 (B. thuringiensis subsp. tolworthi) showed the highest similarity (15%), while isolates HD3 B. thuringiensis subsp finitimus and T24 B. thuringiensis subsp neoleonensis were the most genetically distant (92%). B. thuringiensis isolates with no subspecies identification, found in samples from Goiás State showed higher similarity forming a group with an average distance of 6%, and the closest subspecies to this group was B. thuringiensis subsp thuringiensis (HD2) with 52% of similarity. Groups with high similarity were formed with B. thruingiensis strains collected in the same State, and other groups composed with B. thruingiensis strains collected in different Brazilian regions. No polymorphism was found as a reliable marker among Bt strains efficient and not efficient against fall armyworm.
Figure 1

Dendrogram of genetic similarity of Bacilllus thuringiensis serovars based on AFLP analysis using unweighted pair group arithmetic mean (UPGMA) program for 5 primer combination.

Among the 65 B. thuringiensis strains analyzed, 15 formed a single major cluster, and coincidently these strains were sampled in the same Brazilian State, however more than 200 km apart. The phylogenetic analysis of these Brazilian soil isolates (Figure 1) illustrates the great genetic diversity among strains in the same serovar. However, B. anthracis in a previous analysis of a global collection of 78 strains showed little variation among the isolates.

Kumar et al. 1996 found that the low level of similarity between different B. thuringiensis subspecies or strains used in his research implied in high levels of genetic diversity which was reflected by the diversity in flagellar H-antigen agglutination reactions and presence of different toxins with different insect specificities. According to Aronson et al. 1986, several factors may contribute to the genetic diversity of B. thuringiensis strains, such as the presence of many different plasmids in size and numbers in each strain, and transfer of plasmids via cell mating. Fagundes et al. 2011; found that the number and size of plasmids varied between different strains in the same serovar, however the isolates from Goías State showed similar plasmid profiles, and these informations suggest that these isolates harbor common genes. Carlson, et al. , found that the number and size of plasmids varied between different strains in the same serovar, however the isolates from Goías State showed similar plasmid profiles, and these informations suggest that these isolates harbor common genes. Carlson, et al. found that the number and size of plasmids varied between different strains in the same serovar, however the isolates from Goías State showed similar plasmid profiles, and these informations suggest that these isolates harbor common genes. Carlson, et al. 1996 also reported that the presence or absence of one or more large plasmids and they may be linear or circular during analysis. B. anthracis harbors two plasmids and plasmids of similar size have been reported in B. cereus and B. thuringiensis. These observations support the idea that horizontal gene transfer of plasmid and/or other extrachromosomal markers is an important factor in defining the phenotypes of type I bacillus B. cereus-like isolates evolved along apparent large evolutionary distances to give rise to clusters that in more recent times acquired plasmids that conferred insecticidal or other pathogenic phenotypes (Hill et al. 2004). These observations of genetic diversity were also reflected in our results. Lereclus et al. 1984 mentioned that the transposon-like inverted repeats flanking the endotoxin genes are also a factor of genetic diversity.

Few studies have been published using the fAFLP technique to characterize B. thuringiensis isolates, but we concluded that AFLP is a highly reproducible, easy to use and relatively fast method which can be applied to different organisms, which can be used for genetic diversity studies, and seems particularly well suited for screening a large numbers of isolates. Moreover, the same protocol can be used in screening at the subspecies level, and demonstrated the value of AFLP technique for the study of diversity between strains of B. thuringiensis.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Embrapa Milho e Sorgo
(2)
Department of Biotechnology, Campus Universitário, CEP

References

  1. Aronson AI, Beckman W, Dunn P: Bacillus thuringiensis and related insect pathogens. Microbiol Rev 1986, 30: 1-24.Google Scholar
  2. Burke SA, Wright MK, Robinson MK, Bronk BV, Warren RL: Detection of molecular diversity in Bacillus atrophaeus by amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004, 70(5):2786-2790. 10.1128/AEM.70.5.2786-2790.2004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson CR, Johansen T, Lecadet M-M, Kolstø A-B: Genomic organization of the entomopathogenic bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Berliner 1715. Microbiology 1996, 142: 1625-1634. 10.1099/13500872-142-7-1625View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Cerón J, Covarrubias L, Quintero R, Ortiz A, Ortiz M, Aranda E, Lina L, Bravo A: PCR analysis of the cryI insecticidal crystal family genes from Bacillus thuringiensis . Appl Environ Microbiol 1994, 60: 353-356.Google Scholar
  5. Cerón J, Ortiz A, Quintero R, Güereca L, Bravo A: Specific PCR primers to identify cryI and cryIII genes within a Bacillus thuringiensis strain collection. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995, 61: 3826-3831.Google Scholar
  6. Chak K-F, Chao D-G, Tseng M-Y, Kao S-S, Tuan S-J, Feng T-Y: Determination and distribution of cry-type genes of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates from Taiwan. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994, 60: 2415-2420.Google Scholar
  7. Cruz CD: Programa genes: versão windows; aplicativo computacional em genética e estatística. Viçosa, MG: UFV; 2001:648.Google Scholar
  8. Cruz CD, Carneiro PCS: Modelos Biométricos Aplicados ao Melhoramento Genético. 2nd edition. Viçosa, MG: UFV; 2006.Google Scholar
  9. De Maagd RA, Bosch D, Stiekema W: Bacillus thuringiensis toxin-mediated insect resistance in plants. Trends Plant Sci 1999, 4: 9-13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Efron B, Tibshirani R: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall; 1993.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagundes RBS, Picoli EAT, Lana UGP, Valicente FH: Plasmid patterns of efficient and inefficient strains of Bacillus thuringiensis against Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Neotrop Entomol 2011, 40(5):600-606.Google Scholar
  12. Glare TR, O’Callaghan M: Bacillus Thuringiensis: Biology, Ecology and Safety. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2000:350p.Google Scholar
  13. Grady R, Blanc D, Hauser P, Stanley J: Genotyping of European isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by fluorescent amplified-fragment length polymorphism analysis (FAFLP) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) typing. J Med Microbiol 2001, 50: 588-593.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill KK, Ticknor LO, Okinaka RT, Asay M, Blair H, Bliss KA, Laker M, Pardington PE, Richardson AP, Tonks M, Beecher DJ, Kemp JD, Kolsto A, Wong ACL, Keim P, Jackson PJ: Fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis of Bacillus antracis , Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004, 70(2):1.068-1.080. 10.1128/AEM.70.2.1068-1080.2004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Hossain MA, Ahmed S, Hoque S: Abundance and distribution of Bacillus thuringiensis in the agricultural soil of Bangladesh. J Invertebr Pathol 1997, 70: 221-225. 10.1006/jipa.1997.4694View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Jansen P, Maquelin K, Coopman R, Tjernberg I, Bouvet P, Kersters K, Dijkshoorn L: Discrimination of Acinetobacter genomics species by AFLP fingerprinting. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997, 47: 1179-1187. 10.1099/00207713-47-4-1179View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar PA, Sharma RP, Malik VS: The insecticidal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis . Ad App Microbiol 1996, 42: 1-43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Lereclus D, Ribier J, Klier A, Menou G, Lecadet M-M: A transposon-like structure related to the bendotoxin gene of Bacillus thuringiensis . EMBO J 1984, 3: 2561-2567.Google Scholar
  19. Lima ASG, Guidelli AM, Abreu IL, Lemos MVF: Identification of new isolates of Bacillus thuringiensis using rep-PCR products and δ-endotoxin electron microscopy. Genet Mol Biol 2002, 25(2):225-229. 10.1590/S1415-47572002000200017View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin PA, Travers RS: Worldwide abundance and distribution of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989, 55: 2437-2442.Google Scholar
  21. Ryu C, Lee K, Hawng H, Yoo C, Seong W, Oh H: Molecular characterization of Korean Bacillus anthracis isolates by amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis and Multilocus Variable-Number Tandem Repeat analysis. App Environ Microbiol Wash 2005, 71(8):4.664-4.671. 10.1128/AEM.71.8.4664-4671.2005View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Shangkuan YH, Chang YH, Yang J-F, Lin H-C, Shaio M-F: Molecular characterization of Bacillus anthracis using multiplex PCR, ERIC-PCR and RAPD. Lett Appl Microbiol 2001, 32(3):139-145. 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2001.00881.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Shuhaimi M, Ali AM, Saleh NM, Yazid AM: Utilisation of eterobacterrial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC) sequence-based PCR to fingerprint the genomes of Bifidobacterium isolates and other probiotic bacteria. Biotechnol Lett 2001, 23(9):731-736. 10.1023/A:1010355003674View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Valicente FH, Barreto MR: Bacillus thuringiensis survey in Brazil: geographical distribution and insecticidal activity against Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Neotrop Entomol 2003, 32(4):639-644.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Valicente FH, Fonseca MM: Susceptibilidade da lagarta-do-cartucho do milho, Spodoptera frugiperda , a diferentes isolados de Bacillus thuringiensis . Rev Bras Milho e Sorgo 2004, 3: 21-29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Valicente FH, Edgard ATP, Maria JVV, Newton PC, Andréia AC, Cláudia TG, Ubiraci GL: Molecular characterization and distribution of Bacillus thuringiensis cry1 genes from Brazilian strains effective against the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda . Biol Control 2010, 53: 360-366. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.02.003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Vidyarthi AS, Tyagi RD, Valero JR, Surampalli RY: Studies on the production of B. thuringiensis based biopesticides using wastewater sludge as a raw material. Water Res 2002, 36: 4850-4860. 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00213-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Vilas-Boas G, Sanchis V, Lereclus D, Lemos MVF, Bourguet D: Genetic differentiation between sympatric populations of Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis . Appl Environ Microbiol 2002, 68: 1414-1424. 10.1128/AEM.68.3.1414-1424.2002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, Lee TV, Hornes M, Frijters A, Pot J, Kuipe M, Zabeau M: AFLP a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res 1995, 23: 4407-4414. 10.1093/nar/23.21.4407View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Yamamoto T, Dean DH: Insecticidal Proteins Produced by Bacteria Pathogenic to Agriculturas Pests. In Entomopathogenic Bacteria: From Laboratory to Field Application. Edited by: Charles JF, Delécluse A, Nielsen-LE Roux C. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000:81-100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Zeigler DR: Bacillus Thuringiensis and Bacillus Cereus: Catalog of Strains. Columbus: Bacillus Genetic Stock Center; 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Valicente and da Silva; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.