4.7 Article

Application of real-time PCR to monitor population dynamics of defined mixed cultures of moderate thermophiles involved in bioleaching of chalcopyrite

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 1161-1168

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-008-1792-8

关键词

Moderately thermophilic acidophiles; Bioleaching; Chalcopyrite; Population dynamics; Real-time PCR

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [50621063]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2004CB619204]
  3. China Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development Association [DYXM-115-02-2-07]
  4. State Oceanic Administration of People's Republic of China [200805032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare oxidative dissolution rates of chalcopyrite by different consortia of moderately thermophilic acidophiles, various defined mixed cultures of three bacteria Acidithiobacillus caldus s2, Leptospirillum ferriphilum YSK, and Sulfobacillus sp. LN and one archaeon Ferroplasma thermophilum L1 were studied in batch shake flask cultures incubated at 45 A degrees C. Chalcopyrite dissolution was determined by measuring variations of soluble copper, ferric iron, and pH. Microbial population dynamics involved in bioleaching process were monitored using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology. The complex consortia containing both chemoautotrophic (L. ferriphilum and At. caldus) and chemomixotrophic (Sulfobacillus LN and F. thermophilum) moderate thermophiles were found to be the most efficient in all of those tested. Mutualistic interactions between physiologically distinct moderately thermophilic acidophiles, involving transformations of iron and sulfur and transfer of organic compound, were considered to play a critical role in promoting chalcopyrite dissolution. The real-time PCR assay was reliable to analyze population dynamics of moderate thermophiles in bioleaching systems, and the analysis results were consistent with physiological characteristics of these strains.

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