4.7 Article

Culturing Bias in Marine Heterotrophic Flagellates Analyzed Through Seawater Enrichment Incubations

期刊

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
卷 66, 期 3, 页码 489-499

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-013-0251-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. project MICROVIS, MEC [CTM2007-62140/MAR]
  2. FLAME (MICINN) [CGL2010-16304]
  3. ERA-net program BiodivERsA under the BioMarKs project
  4. I3P program, CSIC [I3PPRE-06-00676]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diversity of heterotrophic flagellates is generally based on cultivated strains, on which ultrastructural, physiological, and molecular studies have been performed. However, the relevance of these cultured strains as models of the dominant heterotrophic flagellates in the marine planktonic environment is unclear. In fact, molecular surveys typically recover novel eukaryotic lineages that have refused cultivation so far. This study was designed to directly address the culturing bias in planktonic marine heterotrophic flagellates. Several microcosms were established adding increasing amounts and sources of organic matter to a confined natural microbial community pre-filtered by 3 mu m. Growth dynamics were followed by epifluorescence microscopy and showed the expected higher yield of bacteria and heterotrophic flagellates at increased organic matter additions. Moreover, protist diversity analyzed by molecular tools showed a clear substitution in the community, which differed more and more from the initial sample as the organic matter increased. Within this gradient, there was also an increase of sequences related to cultured organisms as well as a decrease in diversity. Culturing bias is partly explained by the use of organic matter in the isolation process, which drives a shift in the community to conditions closer to laboratory cultures. An intensive culturing effort using alternative isolation methods is necessary to allow the access to the missing heterotrophic flagellates that constitute the abundant and active taxa in marine systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据