Figure 1.
Rooted phylogenetic tree constructed for partial 16S rRNA gene of isolates cultured from Helicoverpa armigera gut samples.
A neighbor-joining analysis with Jukes–Cantor correction and bootstrap support was performed on the gene sequences. Bootstrap values are given at nodes. Entries against (j) represent generic names and accession numbers (in parentheses) are from public databases. Entries from this work are represented as: clone number and accession number (in parentheses).
Table 1.
Phylogenetic affiliation of bacteria isolated by culturing method from 5th instar larval midguts of H. armigera reared on cotton leaves based on complete 16S rRNA sequence.rRNA sequence.
Figure 2.
Rarefaction analysis: Clone library from the midgut of H. armigera was analyzed by the software DOTUR for constructing the rarefaction curve.
The predicted numbers of OTU's were calculated at the 5% level of sequence divergence, to yield the curve which signifies the extent of coverage of the different bacterial genera in H. armigera midgut.
Figure 3.
Rooted phylogenetic tree constructed for partial 16S rRNA gene of non-culturable bacteria in Helicoverpa armigera gut samples.
A neighbor-joining analysis with Jukes–Cantor correction and bootstrap support was performed on the gene sequences. Bootstrap values are given at nodes. Entries against (j) represent generic names and accession numbers (in parentheses) are from public databases. Entries from this work are represented as: clone number and accession number (in parentheses).
Table 2.
Phylogenetic affliation of bacteria identified by culture independent analysis from 5th instar larvae of midguts of H. armigera reared on cotton leaves based on complete 16S r RNA.
Table 3.
Pairwise comparison for similarity of T-RFLPs from the midgut of Helicoverpa armigera larvae collected on different host plants from Pachora location and artificial diet.
Table 4.
Pairwise comparison for similarity of T-RFLPs from the midgut of Helicoverpa armigera larvae collected from different locations on Chickpea plant.
Table 5.
Pairwise comparison for similarity of T-RFLPs from the midgut of Helicoverpa armigera larvae collected from different locations on Cotton plant.
Table 6.
Pairwise comparison for similarity of T-RFLPs from the midgut of Helicoverpa armigera larvae collected from different locations on Tomato plant.
Figure 4.
Correspondence analysis of T-RFLP data sets derived from BfaI digestion of 16S rDNA from gut bacterial communities of H. armigera of different crops collected from various locations in India.
Axis 1 explains 27.93% of significance and shows the difference between tomato, ladyfinger, castor and sorghum crop plants when compared to the other crops. Axis 2 with 18.56% of significance, illustrates the difference of tomato from other crop plants and artificial diet from rest of the samples. Cluster one includes Chickpea from Pachora (P), Delhi (D), Bangalore (B) and Coimbatore (C), Cotton from P, D, B and C; Sunflower, and Redgram from Pachora. Second cluster has lady finger, sorghum and castor from Pachora. Third cluster consists of tomato crop from P, D, B and C. Artificial diet group forms the 4th cluster.
Table 7.
Pairwise comparison for similarity of T-RFLPs from the midgut of Helicoverpa armigera larvae and phyllosphere of leaves collected from different crops in Delhi.
Figure 5.
Correspondence analysis of T-RFLP data sets derived from BfaI digestion of 16S rDNA from bacterial communities of H. armigera midgut and leaf phyllosphere from different crops.
Axis 1 explains 35.5% of significance and mainly showed the variation of tomato samples from other samples. Axis 2 with 32.18% of significance, illustrates the difference of ladyfinger samples from rest of the samples. Cluster one includes leaf and H. armigera samples, collected from the ladyfinger crop. Second cluster consists of leaf and H. armigera samples, collected from cotton and sorghum crops. Third cluster consists of leaf and H. armigera samples, collected from tomato crop.