4.2 Article

Changes in the bacterial community associated with black band disease in a Red Sea coral, Favia sp., in relation to disease phases

期刊

DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS
卷 116, 期 1, 页码 47-58

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/dao02911

关键词

Coral; Black band disease; Cyanobacteria; Microbiota; Red Sea

资金

  1. ISF [1167/07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Changes of the black band disease (BBD)-associated microbial consortium on the surface of a Favia sp. coral colony were assessed in relation to the different disease phases. A number of highly active bacterial groups changed in numbers as the BBD disease signs changed. These included Gamma- and Epsilonproteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes groups. One cyanobacterium strain, BGP10_4S(T) (FJ210722), was constantly present in the disease interface and adjacent tissues of the affected corals, regardless of disease phase. The dynamics of the operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of this BBD-specific strain provide a marker regarding the disease phase. The disease's active phase is characterized by a wide dark band progressing along the tissue- skeleton interface and by numerous bacterial OTUs. Cyanobacterial OTUs decreased in numbers as the disease signs waned, perhaps opening a niche for additional microorganisms. Even when black band signs disappeared there was a consistent though low abundance of the BBD-specific cyanobacteria (BGP10_4S(T)), and the microbial community of the disease-skeleton interface remained surprisingly similar to the original band community. These results provide an indication that the persistence of even low numbers of this BBD-specific cyanobacterium in coral tissues during the non-active (or subclinical) state could facilitate reinitiation of BBD signs during the following summer. This may indicate that this bacterium is major constituent of the disease and that its persistence and ability to infiltrate the coral tissues may act to facilitate the assembly of the other BBD-specific groups of bacteria.

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

4.2
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