4.8 Article

High Concentrations of the Antibiotic Spiramycin in Wastewater Lead to High Abundance of Ammonia-Oxidizing Archaea in Nitrifying Populations

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 49, 期 15, 页码 9124-9132

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01293

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (NSFC) [21437005, 51178449]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Peoples Republic of China [2012AA063401]
  3. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control [14l03ESPC]
  4. Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Oklahoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the potential effects of antibiotics on ammonia-oxidizing microbes, multiple tools including quantitative PCR (qPCR), 454-pyrosequencing, and a high-throughput functional gene array (GeoChip) were used to reveal the distribution of ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) and archaeal amoA (Arch-amoA) genes in three wastewater treatment systems receiving spiramycin or oxytetracycline production wastewaters. The qPCR results revealed that the copy number ratios of Arch-amoA to ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) amoA genes were the highest in the spiramycin full-scale (5.30) and pilot-scale systems (1.49 X 10(-1)), followed by the oxytetracycline system (4.90 X 10(-4)), with no Arch-amoA genes detected in the control systems treating sewage or inosine production wastewater. The pyrosequencing result showed that the relative abundance of AOA affiliated with Thaumarchaeota accounted for 78.5-99.6% of total archaea in the two spiramycin systems, which was in accordance with the qPCR results. Mantel test based on GeoChip data showed that Arch-amoA gene signal intensity correlated with the presence of spiramycin (P < 0.05). Antibiotics explained 25.8% of variations in amoA functional gene structures by variance partitioning analysis. This study revealed the selection of AOA in the presence of high concentrations of spiramycin in activated sludge 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

4.8
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