4.4 Article

Exploring the antibiotic resistome in activated sludge and anaerobic digestion sludge in an urban wastewater treatment plant via metagenomic analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 123-130

出版社

MICROBIOLOGICAL SOCIETY KOREA
DOI: 10.1007/s12275-020-9309-y

关键词

antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs); Mobile genetic elements; urban wastewater treatment plant; metagenomics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) are emerging contaminants that pose a potential threat to human health worldwide. Urban wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are a main source of both antibiotic-resistant bacteria and ARGs released into the environment. Nevertheless, the propagation of ARGs and their underlying mechanisms and the dynamics of mobile genetic elements (MGEs) in WWTPs have rarely been investigated in South Korea. In this study, shotgun metagenomic analysis was used to identify comprehensive ARGs and their mechanisms, bacterial communities, and MGEs from 4 configurations with 2 activated sludge (AS) and 2 anaerobic digestion sludge (ADS) samples. A total of 181 ARG subtypes belonging to 22 ARG types were broadly detected, and the ARG abundances in the AS samples were 1.3-2.0 orders of magnitude higher than in the ADS samples. Multidrug and bacitracin resistance genes were the predominant ARG types in AS samples, followed by ARGs against sulfonamide, tetracycline, and beta-lactam. However, the composition of ARG types in ADS samples was significantly changed. The abundance of multidrug and beta-lactam resistance genes was drastically reduced in the ADS samples. The resistance genes of MLS were the predominant, followed by ARGs against sulfonamide and tetracycline in the ADS samples. In addition, plasmids were the dominant MGEs in the AS samples, while integrons (intI1) were the dominant MGEs in the ADS samples. These results provide valuable information regarding the prevalence of ARG types and MGEs and the difference patterns between the AS and ADS 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

4.4
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