4.6 Article

Seasonal variations in the contributions of different bacterial groups to the uptake of low-molecular-weight compounds in northwestern Mediterranean coastal waters

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 11, 页码 3528-3535

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02627-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyzed the contributions of different heterotrophic bacterial groups to the uptake of several low-molecular weight compounds during a seasonal cycle on the northwestern Mediterranean coast (Blanes Bay Microbial Observatory). The bacterial assemblage structure had been shown to change substantially year-round for this site, but whether changes in the activities of the different bacterial groups also occurred on the seasonal scale was unknown. Microautoradiography combined with catalyzed reporter deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization was used to analyze the patterns of glucose, amino acid, and ATP uptake by different bacterial groups. Gammaproteobacteria and Bacteroidetes were not very active in the uptake of glucose at any time of the year (< 10% of cells were active) compared to Alphaproteobacteria (generally > 20% of cells were active). Dissolved free amino acids were taken up considerably by Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria but not by Bacteroidetes. Relatively high percentages of cells of the three broad phylogenetic groups actively took up ATP, which could be related to the important phosphorous limitation of bacterial production during most of the year in Blanes Bay. The contribution of SARI I to the uptake of the monomers was variable year-round, generally with fewer than 30% of the cells being active. By contrast, Roseobacter were highly overrepresented in the uptake of all the substrates throughout all the year, with more than 50% of cells being active in all the samples and for all substrates. Our results suggest that substantial changes in the activity of some phylogenetic groups of bacteria occur throughout the year.

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