4.6 Article

Microbial community structure and dynamics of starch-fed and glucose-fed chemostats during two years of continuous operation

期刊

出版社

HIGHER EDUCATION PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11783-015-0815-9

关键词

microbial community; glucose degradation; starch degradation; dilution rate; continuous methane fermentation; phylogenetic analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31200068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The microbial community structures of two mesophilic anaerobic chemostats, one fed with glucose, the other with starch as sole carbon sources, were studied at various dilution rates (0.05-0.25 d(-1) for glucose and 0.025-0.1 d(-1) for starch) during two years continuous operation. In the glucose-fed chemostat, the aceticlastic methanogen Methanosaeta spp. and hydrogenotrophic methanogen Methanoculleus spp. predominated at low dilution rates, whereas Methanosaeta spp. and the hydrogenotrophic Methanobacterium spp. predominated together when dilution rates were greater than 0.1 d(-1). Bacteria affiliated with the phyla Bacteroidetes, Spirochaetes, and Actinobacteria predominated at dilution rates of 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15 d(-1), respectively, while Firmicutes predominated at higher dilution rates (0.2 and 0.25 d(-1)). In the starch-fed chemostat, the aceticlastic and hydrogenotrophic methanogens coexisted at all dilution rates. Although bacteria belonging to only two phyla were mainly responsible for starch degradation (Spirochaetes at the dilution rate of 0.08 d(-1) and Firmicutes at other dilution rates), different bacterial genera were identified at different dilution rates. With the exception of Archaea in the glucose-fed chemostat, the band patterns revealed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) of the microbial communities in the two chemostats displayed marked changes during long-term operation at a constant dilution rate. The bacterial community changed with changes in the dilution rate, and was erratic during longterm operation in both glucose-fed and starch-fed chemostats.

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