4.5 Article

Shotgun metagenomics reveals a heterogeneous prokaryotic community and a wide array of antibiotic resistance genes in mangrove sediment

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 96, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa173

关键词

mangroves; environment; microbial ecology; antibiotic resistance; metagenome; next generation sequencing

资金

  1. UGC-NFHEST fellowship Govt. of India
  2. [SERB-EMEQ/051/2014]
  3. [EEQ/2018/001085]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Saline tolerant mangrove forests partake in vital biogeochemical cycles. However, they are endangered due to deforestation as a result of urbanization. In this study, we have carried out a metagenomic snapshot of the mangrove ecosystem from five countries to assess its taxonomic, functional and antibiotic resistome structure. Chao1 alpha diversity varied significantly (P < 0.001) between the countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, China, India and Malaysia). All datasets were composed of 33 phyla dominated by eight major phyla covering >90% relative abundance. Comparative analysis of mangrove with terrestrial and marine ecosystems revealed the strongest heterogeneity in the mangrove microbial community. We also observed that the mangrove community shared similarities to both the terrestrial and marine microbiome, forming a link between the two contrasting ecosystems. The antibiotic resistant genes (ARG) resistome was comprised of nineteen level 3 classifications dominated by multidrug resistance efflux pumps (46.7 +/- 4.3%) and BlaR1 family regulatory sensor-transducer disambiguation (25.2 +/- 4.8%). ARG relative abundance was significantly higher in Asian countries and in human intervention datasets at a global scale. Our study shows that the mangrove microbial community and its antibiotic resistance are affected by geography as well as human intervention and are unique to the mangrove ecosystem. Understanding changes in the mangrove microbiome and its ARG is significant for sustainable development and public health.

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

4.5
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