4.6 Article

Detection and cultivation of soil verrucomicrobia

Journal

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 71, Issue 12, Pages 8402-8410

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8402-8410.2005

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Only one isolate each of the class Spartobacteria (subdivision 2 of the phylum Verrucomicrobia) and of subdivision 3 of Verrucomicrobia have previously been reported to grow in laboratory culture. Using media that had been used successfully in other studies to isolate members of diverse groups of soil bacteria, we generated a collection of over 1,200 isolates from soil from a pasture. An oligonucleotide probe that targets the 16S rRNA genes of verrucomicrobia was used to screen this collection, and 14 new verrucomicrobia were identified. Nine of these belonged to the class Spartobacteria and were related to Chthoniobacter flavus. Five further isolates were members of subdivision 3 and were related to the only known isolate of this subdivision. The differences in the 16S rRNA gene sequences of the new isolates and previously described isolates, of up to 10%, indicated that the new isolates represent new species and genera. All but two of the verrucomicrobial isolates were from colonies that first became visible one or more months after inoculation of plates with soil, but subcultures grew more rapidly. Analysis of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA genes in the pasture soil showed that members of the class Spartobacteria were more numerous than members of subdivision 3. Isolates of subdivision 3 were only found on plates receiving an inoculum that yielded a mean of 29 colonies per plate, while members of the class Spartobacteria were only found on plates receiving a more dilute inoculum that resulted in a mean of five colonies per plate. This suggested that colony development by members of the class Spartobacteria was inhibited by other culturable bacteria.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available