4.1 Article

Cultivation of moonmilk-born non-extremophilic Thaum and Euryarchaeota in mixed culture

Journal

ANAEROBE
Volume 29, Issue -, Pages 73-79

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.10.002

Keywords

Cultivable Archaea; Non-extremophilic Archaea; Thaumarchaeota; Euryarchaeota; Moonmilk; Cave

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PCR-DGGE, qPCR and sequencing highlighted a quite homogenous archaeal community prevailing in secondary calcite deposits, so-called moonmilk, within the cold alpine Hundalm cave in Tyrol (Austria). Furthermore, the depth profile of this moonmilk could prove that the Archaea are located in oxygen-rich near- and oxygen-depleted sub-surface layers. To gather these communities we therefore applied an aerobic and anaerobic cultivation approach in oligotrophic and methanotrophic media. The mixed moonmilk community was analyzed with a combination of molecular methods using qPCR, PCR-DGGE and sequencing. Anaerobic and aerobic cultures were additionally investigated with GC and HPLC analyses. It was possible to initially cultivate and enrich the supposed aerobic/microaerophilic and anaerobic archaeal fraction, representing the natural archaeal community. While the naturally less abundant near-surface Archaea are closely related to members of the Thaumarchaeota (Nitrosopumilus maritimus), the highly abundant anaerobic Archaea are more distantly related to members within the Euryarchaeota. It is possible that these cultivable moonmilk-born Archaea represent new ecotypes or are so far undescribed. Based on the sequencing results and the production of very low amounts of methane, a corresponding methanogenic community is thought to represent only a minor abundant archaeal fraction. On a physiological level the cultivated moonmilk community is cold-adapted and basically of oligotrophic and organotrophic character. (C) 2013 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

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available