4.7 Article

Characterization of the Major Capsid Genes (g23) of T4-Type Bacteriophages in the Wetlands of Northeast China

Journal

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 3, Pages 616-625

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-012-0158-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [2011T2Z14]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41071172, 41271262]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To obtain genetic information and to evaluate the composition of T4-type bacteriophage (phage) communities in wetlands, environmental soil and water DNAs were obtained from two natural wetlands dominated by Carex lasiocarpa and Deyeuxia angustifolia plant species, and a neighboring paddy field in Sanjiang plain of northeast China. The biomarker gene of g23, which encodes the major capsid protein of T4-type phages, was amplified with primers MZIA1bis and MZIA6, and the PCR products were cloned and sequenced. In total, 96 and 50 different g23 clones were obtained from natural wetlands and a paddy field, respectively. A larger number of clones with low levels of identity to known sequences were found in water than in soil both in the natural wetlands and the paddy field, suggesting that many of T4-type phages in wetland water and paddy floodwater in Sanjiang plain are uncharacterized. Phylogenetic analyses showed that the g23 clones in natural wetlands, irrespective of water and soil, were distinctly different from those in marine waters, lake waters, and upland black soils, but were similar to those in paddy fields. The UniFrac analysis of g23 assemblages indicated that T4-type phage community compositions were different between soils and waters, and also were different between the natural wetlands and the paddy field. In general, the global analysis of g23 clone assemblages demonstrated that T4-type phage community compositions were different among natural wetlands, marines, lakes, paddy fields, and upland black soils.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available