4.5 Article

Revealing microbial community structures in large- and small-scale activated sludge systems by barcoded pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA gene

期刊

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 66, 期 10, 页码 2155-2161

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wst.2012.428

关键词

activated sludge; microbial diversity; pyrosequencing; wastewater treatment; 16S ribosomal RNA

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
  2. global COE project of 'Genome Information Big Bang'
  3. [22246069]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diversity of bacterial groups in activated sludge from large- and small-scale wastewater treatment plants was explored by barcoded pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA gene. Activated sludge samples (three small and 17 large scale) were collected from 12 wastewater treatment plants to clarify precise taxonomy and relative abundances. DNA was extracted, and amplified by 4 base barcoded 27f/519r primer set. The 454 Titanium (Roche) pyrosequences were obtained and analyses performed by Quantitative Insight Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) with around 100,000 reads. Sequence statistics were computed, while constructing a phylogenetic tree and heatmap. Computed results explained total microbial diversity at phylum and class level and resolution was further extended to Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) based taxonomic assignment for investigating community distribution based on individual sample. Composition of sequence reads were compared and microbial community structures for large- and small-scale treatment plants were identified as major phyla (Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes) and classes (Betaproteobacteria and Bacteroidetes). Also, family level breakdowns were explained and differences in family Nitrospiraceae and phylum Actinobacteria found at their species level were also illustrated. Thus, the pyrosequencing method provides high resolution insight into microbial community structures in activated sludge that might have been unnoticed with conventional approaches.

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

4.5
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