4.6 Article

Assessment of Variation in Bacterial Composition among Microhabitats in a Mangrove Environment Using DGGE Fingerprints and Barcoded Pyrosequencing

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029380

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SM59/4-1, SM59/4-2]
  2. FAPERJ-Brazil
  3. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM, Portugal)
  4. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) [PTDC/AAC-CLI/107916/2008]
  5. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through COMPETE [FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-008657]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/AAC-CLI/107916/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Here, we use DGGE fingerprinting and barcoded pyrosequencing data, at six cut-off levels (85-100%), of all bacteria, Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria to assess composition in the rhizosphere of nursery plants and nursery-raised transplants, native plants and bulk sediment in a mangrove habitat. When comparing compositional data based on DGGE fingerprinting and barcoded pyrosequencing at different cut-off levels, all revealed highly significant differences in composition among microhabitats. Procrustes superimposition revealed that ordination results using cut-off levels from 85-100% and DGGE fingerprint data were highly congruent with the standard 97% cut-off level. The various approaches revealed a primary gradient in composition from nursery to mangrove samples. The affinity between the nursery and transplants was greatest when using Betaproteobacteria followed by Alphaproteobacteria data. There was a distinct secondary gradient in composition from transplants to bulk sediment with native plants intermediate, which was most prevalent using all bacteria at intermediate cut-off levels (92-97%). Our results show that PCR-DGGE provides a robust and cost effective exploratory approach and is effective in distinguishing among a priori defined groups.

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

4.6
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