4.7 Article

Bacterial diversity in a finished compost and vermicompost: differences revealed by cultivation-independent analyses of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA genes

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 71, 期 6, 页码 942-952

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-005-0228-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial communities are important catalysts in the production of composts. Here, it was analysed whether the diversity of bacteria in finished composts is stable and specific for the production process. Single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) based on polymerase chain reaction amplified partial 16S rRNA genes was used to profile and analyse bacterial communities found in total DNA extracted from finished composts. Different batches of compost samples stored over a period of 12 years and a 1-year-old vermicompost were compared to each other. According to digital image analysis, clear differences could be detected between the profiles from compost and vermicompost. Differences between three different periods of compost storage and between replicate vermicompost windrows were only minor. A total of 41 different 16S rRNA genes were identified from the SSCP profiles by DNA sequencing, with the vast majority related to yet-uncultivated bacteria. Sequences retrieved from compost mainly belonged to the phyla Actinobacteria and Firmicutes. In contrast, vermicompost was dominated by bacteria related to uncultured Chloroflexi, Acidobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Gemmatimonadetes. The differences were underscored with specific gene probes and Southern blot hybridizations. The results confirmed that different substrates and composting processes selected for specific bacterial communities in the finished products. The specificity and consistency of the bacterial communities inhabiting the compost materials suggest that cultivation-independent bacterial community analysis is a potentially useful indicator to characterize the quality of finished composts in regard to production processes and effects of storage conditions.

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

4.7
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