4.0 Article

Diversity of toxin and non-toxin containing cyanobacterial mats of meltwater ponds on the Antarctic Peninsula: a pyrosequencing approach

期刊

ANTARCTIC SCIENCE
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 521-532

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0954102014000145

关键词

automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis; cylindrospermopsin; liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry; microcystin

资金

  1. Carl Zeiss Stiftung
  2. Excellence Initiative of the University of Konstanz, Germany
  3. UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  4. British Antarctic Survey (BAS) [AFI-CGS-70]
  5. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite their pivotal role as primary producers, there is little information as to the diversity and physiology of cyanobacteria in the meltwater ecosystems of polar regions. Thirty cyanobacterial mats from Adelaide Island, Antarctica were investigated using 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis, and screened for cyanobacterial toxins using molecular and chemical approaches. A total of 274 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were detected. The richness ranged between 8 and 33 cyanobacterial OTUs per sample, reflecting a high mat diversity. Leptolyngbya and Phormidium (c. 55% and 37% of the OTUs per mat) were dominant. Cyanobacterial community composition was similar between mats, particularly those obtained from closely adjacent locations. The cyanotoxin microcystin was detected in 26 of 27 mats (10-300 ng g(-1) organic mass), while cylindrospermopsin, detected for the first time in Antarctica, was present in 21 of 30 mats (2-156 ng g(-1) organic mass). The latter was confirmed via liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and by the presence of the cyrAB and cyrJ genes. This study demonstrates the usefulness of pyrosequencing for characterizing diverse cyanobacterial communities, and confirms that cyanobacteria from extreme environments produce a similar range of cyanotoxins as their temperate counterparts.

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

4.0
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