4.7 Article

Community Composition of Known and Uncultured Archaeal Lineages in Anaerobic or Anoxic Wastewater Treatment Sludge

期刊

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 586-596

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-014-0525-z

关键词

Archaeal community composition; Uncultured lineages; 16S rRNA gene sequencing; Diversity analysis; Anaerobic wastewater treatment sludge

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (MEXT)
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  3. Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development (SATREPS)
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [13J08828] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial systems are widely used to treat different types of wastewater from domestic, agricultural, and industrial sources. Community composition is an important factor in determining the successful performance of microbial treatment systems; however, a variety of uncultured and unknown lineages exist in sludge that requires identification and characterization. The present study examined the archaeal community composition in methanogenic, denitrifying, and nitrogen-/phosphate-removing wastewater treatment sludge by Archaea-specific 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis using Illumina sequencing technology. Phylotypes belonging to Euryarchaeota, including methanogens, were most abundant in all samples except for nitrogen-/phosphate-removing wastewater treatment sludge. High levels of Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vent Group 6 (DHVEG-6), WSA2, Terrestrial Miscellaneous Euryarchaeotal Group, and Miscellaneous Crenarchaeotic Group were also detected. Interestingly, DHVEG-6 was dominant in nitrogen-/phosphate-removing wastewater treatment sludge, indicating that unclear lineages of Archaea still exist in the anaerobic wastewater treatment sludges. These results reveal a previously unknown diversity of Archaea in sludge that can potentially be exploited for the development of more efficient wastewater treatment strategies.

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