4.3 Article

Molecular phylogenetic diversity of bacteria associated with the leachate of a closed municipal solid waste landfill

Journal

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 242, Issue 2, Pages 297-303

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.femsle.2004.11.021

Keywords

municipal solid waste landfill; bacteria; molecular diversity; 16S rDNA clone library

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A 16S rDNA-based molecular study was performed to determine the nature of the bacterial constituents of the leachate from a closed municipal solid waste landfill. Total community DNA was extracted and bacterial 16S rRNA genes were subsequently amplified and cloned. Recombinant rDNA clones in the library were randomly selected, and they were sequenced for a single run and then grouped. A total of 76 sequence types representing 138 randomly selected nonchimeric clones were identified. Full-length sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of the sequence types revealed that more than 90% of the screened clones were affiliated with low-G + C gram-positive bacteria (38.4%), Proteobacteria (35.5%), the Cytophaga Flexibacter Bacteroides group (11.6%), and Spirochaetes (5.1%). Minor portions were affiliated with Verrucomicrobia (2.9%), candidate division OP11 (2.2%), and the green nonsulfur bacteria, Cyanobacteria and the Deinococcus Thermus group (each <1.0%). Although some rDNA sequences clustered with genera or taxa that were classically identified within anaerobic treatment systems and expected with known functions, a substantial fraction of the clone sequences showed relatively low levels of similarity with any other reported rDNA sequences and thus were derived from unknown taxa. These results suggest that bacterial communities in landfill environment are far more complex than previously expected and remain largely unexplored. (C) 2004 Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available