4.8 Article

Unraveling Microbial Communities Associated with Methylmercury Production in Paddy Soils

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 52, 期 22, 页码 13110-13118

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b03052

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41877120, 41571453]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) [DE-AC05-000R22725]
  3. DOE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rice consumption is now recognized as an important pathway of human exposure to the neurotoxin methylmercury (MeHg), particularly in countries where rice is a staple food. Although the discovery of a two-gene cluster hgcAB has linked Hg methylation to several phylogenetically diverse groups of anaerobic microorganisms converting inorganic mercury (Hg) to MeHg, the prevalence and diversity of Hg methylators in microbial communities of rice paddy soils remain unclear. We characterized the abundance and distribution of hgcAB genes using third-generation PacBio long-read sequencing and Illumina short-read metagenomic sequencing, in combination with quantitative PCR analyses in several mine-impacted paddy soils from southwest China. Both Illumina and PacBio sequencing analyses revealed that Hg methylating communities were dominated by iron-reducing bacteria (i.e., Geobacter) and methanogens, with a relatively low abundance of hgcA(+) sulfate-reducing bacteria in the soil. A positive correlation was observed between the MeHg content in soil and the relative abundance of Geobacter carrying the hgcA gene. Phylogenetic analysis also uncovered some hgcAB sequences closely related to three novel Hg methylators, Geobacter anodireducens, Desulfuromonas sp. DDH964, and Desulfovibrio sp. J2, among which G. anodireducens was validated for its ability to methylate Hg. These findings shed new light on microbial community composition and major clades likely driving Hg methylation in rice paddy soils.

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

4.8
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