4.4 Article

Assessment of microbiota present on a Portuguese historical stone convent using high-throughput sequencing approaches

期刊

MICROBIOLOGYOPEN
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mbo3.1030

关键词

biocolonization; biodegradation; biodeterioration; biodeteriogenic activity; metagenomic DNA; microbiota assessment; stone material biodecay

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund ALENTEJO 2020 [ALT20-03-0145-FEDER-000017, ALT20-03-0145-FEDER-000015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study performed on the stone materials from the Convent of Christ revealed the presence of a complex microbial ecosystem, emphasizing the determinant role of microorganisms on the biodecay of this built cultural heritage. In this case study, the presence of Rubrobacter sp., Arthrobacter sp., Roseomonas sp., and Marinobacter sp. seems to be responsible for colored stains and biofilm formation while Ulocladium sp., Cladosporium sp., and Dirina sp. may be related to structural damages. The implementation of high-throughput sequencing approaches on the Convent of Christ's biodecay assessment allowed us to explore, compare, and characterize the microbial communities, overcoming the limitations of culture-dependent techniques, which only identify the cultivable population. The application of these different tools and insights gave us a panoramic view of the microbiota thriving on the Convent of Christ and signalize the main biodeteriogenic agents acting on the biodecay of stone materials. This finding highlighted the importance of performing metagenomic studies due to the improvements and the reduced amount of sample DNA needed, promoting a deeper and more detailed knowledge of the microbiota present on these dynamic repositories that support microbial life. This will further enable us to perform prospective studies in quarry and applied stone context, monitoring biogenic and nonbiogenic agents, and also to define long-term mitigation strategies to prevent biodegradation/biodeterioration processes.

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