4.4 Review

Comparative analysis of Beggiatoa from hypersaline and marine environments

Journal

MICRON
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 507-517

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2010.01.009

Keywords

Beggiatoa; Ultrastructure; Cytochemistry; Sulfide-oxidizing filamentous bacteria

Categories

Funding

  1. CNPq
  2. CAPES
  3. FAPERJ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The main criterion to classify a microorganism as belonging to the genus Beggiatoa is its morphology. All multicellular, colorless, gliding bacterial filaments containing sulfur globules described so far belong to this genus. At the ultrastructural level, they show also a very complex cell envelope structure. Here we describe uncultured vacuolated and non-vacuolated bacteria from two different environments showing all characteristics necessary to assign a bacterium to the genus Beggiatoa. We also intended to investigate whether narrow and vacuolate Beggiatoa do differ morphologically as much as they do phylogenetically. Both large, vacuolated trichomes and narrow filaments devoid of vacuoles were observed. We confirmed the identity of the narrow filaments by 16S rRNA phylogenetic analysis. The diameters of the trichomes ranged from 2.4 to 34 mu m, and their lengths ranged from 10 mu m to over 30 mm. Narrow trichomes moved by gliding at 3.0 mu m/s; large filaments moved at 1.5 mu m/s. Periplasmic sulfur inclusions were observed in both types of filaments, whereas phosphorus-rich bodies were found only in narrow trichomes. On the other hand, nitrate vacuoles were observed only in large trichomes. Ultra-thin section transmission electron microscopy showed differences between the cell ultrastructure of narrow (non-vacuolated) and large (vacuolated) Beggiatoa. We observed that cell envelopes from narrow Beggiatoa consist of five layers, whereas cell envelopes from large trichomes contain four layers. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available