4.6 Article

Actively growing bacteria in the Inland Sea of Japan, identified by combined bromodeoxyuridine immunocapture and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 9, 页码 2787-2798

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02111-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fundamental question in microbial oceanography concerns the relationship between prokaryote diversity and biogeochemical function in an ecosystem context. We combined bromodeoxymidine (BrdU) magnetic bead immunocapture and PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (BUMP-DGGE) to examine phylotype-specific growth in natural marine assemblages. We also examined a broad range of marine bacterial isolates to determine their abilities to incorporate BrdU in order to test the validity of the method for application to diverse marine assemblages. We found that 27 of 29 isolates belonging to different taxa could incorporate BrdU. BUMP-DGGE analysis revealed phylogenetic affiliations of DNA-synthesizing, presumably actively growing bacteria across a eutrophic to mesotrophic transect in the Inland Sea of Japan. We found that the BrdU-incorporating (growing) communities were substantially different from the total communities. The majority (34/56) of phylotypes incorporated BrdU and were presumably growing, and these phylotypes comprised 10 alphaproteobacteria, 1 betaproteobacterium, 11 gammaproteobacteria, 11 Cytophaga-Flavobacterium-Bateroides group bacteria, and 1 unclassified bacterium. All BrdU-responsive alphaproteobacteria were members of the Rhodobacterales, suggesting that such bacteria were dominant in the growing alphaproteobacterial populations in our samples. The BrdU-responsive gammaproteobacteria belonged to the Oceanospirillales, the SAR86 cluster, the Pseudomonadales, the Alteromonadales, and the Vibrionales. Thus, contemporaneous cooccurrence of diverse actively growing bacterial taxa was a consistent pattern in our biogeochemically varied study area.

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