4.6 Article

Close but different: Metabarcoding analyses reveal different microbial communities in ancient Roman nymphaea

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2023.105619

关键词

Archaeological site; Biodeterioration; High-throughput sequencing; Marine taxa; Stone monuments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we used metabarcoding to analyze the microbial communities in Roman nymphaea. The results showed differences in communities between sites and within one site, with marine taxa present due to marine aerosols and submerged water. Extremophiles commonly found in cave environments were also identified. Overall, this study provided insight into the community colonizing the nymphaea and highlighted the usefulness of metabarcoding for restoration purposes.
In this study, we used a metabarcoding approach to characterize the prokaryotic and eukaryotic communities colonizing two adjacent but structurally different Roman nymphaea in the archaeological park of Baia (Phle-graean Fields, Campania region, Italy). These two environments likely belonged to a thermal complex and are still mostly unearthed because of the effect of bradyseism. This condition, together with infiltrations by un-derground brackish water, exposed the sites to different degrees of biodeterioration. We sampled 17 biofilms across the two sites and found differences in microbial communities both between sites and within one site. No particular patterns of diversity were detected when considering the composition of the substratum. At finer taxonomic level, the influence of marine aerosols and submerged water was highlighted by the presence of several marine taxa. Moreover, we found some bacteria previously reported elsewhere from thermal vents or deep waters, confirming that cave environments often harbour extremophiles. Overall, this study provided a detailed overview of whole community colonizing the nymphaea and confirmed the metabarcoding approach as a powerful tool to gather taxonomic information useful for restoration purposes.

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