4.4 Article

Molecular characterization of the planktonic microorganisms in water of two mountain brackish lakes

期刊

JOURNAL OF BASIC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 6, 页码 509-520

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jobm.201300187

关键词

16S rRNA gene; Bacteria; Archaea; Microbial diversity; Mountain brackish lakes

资金

  1. Open Project of the Key Lab of Microorganisms in Xinjiang Specific Environment [XJYS0203-2011-02]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region [2012211B48]
  3. High and New Technology Project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region [201216141]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prokaryotic diversity in two brackish lakes (Sayram Lake and Chaiwopu Lake) was investigated by constructing bacterial and archaeal clone libraries of 16S rRNA genes. Bacterial clones from Sayram Lake were classified into six phyla (Proteobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Bacteroidetes, Planctomycetes, Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria). Of these, Proteobacteria and Verrucomicrobia were the most dominant, representing 50.4 and 16.8% of the clone library, respectively. Sequences related to Proteobacteria (58.1%), Cyanobacteria (17.2%), Bacteroidetes (15%), Verrucomicrobia (4.3%), Actinobacteria (3.2%) constituted over 97% of the bacterial clone library from Chaiwopu Lake. In addition, 58.8% (Sayram Lake) and 48% (Chaiwopu Lake) of bacterial clones showed high sequence identity to pure cultures. The composition of Archaea was obviously different between the two lakes. Only the Crenarchaeota phylum was found in the Sayram Lake, whereas Archaeal sequences from Chaiwopu Lake were classified into three phyla: Crenarchaeota (5.8%), Thaumarchaeota (81.2%), and Euryarchaeota (13%). Among the archaeal sequences, 94.2% were highly related to cultivable species of the genus Nitrosopumilus, Methanoculleus, and Methanobacterium. These results showed a high diversity of potential cultivable heterotrophic bacteria in Sayram Lake and Chaiwopu Lake. Chaiwopu Lake was a source of potentially novel, cultivable archaea.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据