4.5 Article

Characterization of eubacterial and archaeal community diversity in the pit mud of Chinese Luzhou-flavor liquor by nested PCR-DGGE

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY & BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 605-612

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-013-1472-4

Keywords

Pit mud; Eubacteria; Community diversity; Archaea; DGGE

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [31171742]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the microbial community structures of eubacteria and archaea in the pit mud of Chinese Luzhou-flavor liquor from the wall (C-w) and bottom (C-b) of cellar through nested PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE). The Shannon-Wiener index (H) calculated from the DGGE profiles showed that the community diversities of eubacteria and archaea in samples from C-b were almost higher than that from C-w. In addition, cluster analysis of the DGGE profiles revealed that some differences were found in the microbial community structure in samples from different locations. The closely relative microorganisms of all eubacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences fell into four phyla (Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria), including 12 genera and 2 uncultured eubacteria. Moreover, 37.1 % eubacteria were affiliated with Clostridium. Particularly, genus Acinetobacter was absent in all samples from C-b but present in all samples from C-w. The closely relative microorganisms of all archaeal 16S rRNA gene sequences fell into four genera, which included Methanobrevibacter, Methanoculleus, Methanobacterium and Methanosaeta, while the dominant archaea in samples from C-w and C-b were similar. Results presented in this study provide further understanding of the spatial differences in microbial community structure in the pit mud, and is of great importance for the production and quality improvement of Luzhou-flavor liquor.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available