4.7 Article

Comparative Study of Bacterial Communities in Nepenthes Pitchers and Their Correlation to Species and Fluid Acidity

期刊

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 381-393

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-016-0798-5

关键词

Bacterial diversity; Nepenthes; Next-generation sequencing; Pitcher fluid; 16S rRNAgene

资金

  1. National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology [P-15-50129]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pitchers are specialized digestive organs of carnivorous plants which evolved for trapping prey and represent a unique environment harboring hidden diversity of unexplored microbes forming transient hydrolytic microcosms. In this study, the diversity of bacterial communities in the pitcher fluids of seven local Nepenthes found in Thailand was assessed by tagged 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene amplicon sequencing on an Ion PGM (TM) platform. A total of 1,101,000 filtered sequences were obtained which were taxonomically classified into 20 phyla, 48 classes, 72 orders, 153 families, and 442 genera while the remainder (1.43 %) could not be assigned to any existing taxa. Proteobacteria represented the predominant members in closed pitchers and more diversified bacterial taxa particularly Bacteriodetes and Actinobacteria, showed increasing abundance in open pitchers containing insect bodies. Principal coordinate analysis revealed that distribution of bacterial taxa was not significantly related to the Nepenthes species but strongly correlated to the pH of the pitcher fluids (pH 1.7-6.7). Acidicella was a highly dominant bacterial genus in acidic pitcher fluids while Dyella and Mycobacterium were also common genera in most pitchers. A unique microbial community structure was found in Nepenthes ampullaria which could reflect their adaptation to digest leaf litter, in addition to insect prey. The work revealed the highly unexplored nature of bacterial microcosms in Nepenthes pitcher fluids and provides insights into their community structure in this unique ecological system.

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

4.7
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