4.6 Article

Comparison of vertical distributions of prokaryotic assemblages in the anoxic Cariaco Basin and Black Sea by use of fluorescence in situ hybridization

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 2679-2690

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.72.4.2679-2690.2006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individual prokaryotic cells from two major anoxic basins, the Cariaco Basin and the Black Sea, were enumerated throughout their water columns using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with the fluorochrome Cy3 or horseradish peroxidase-modified oligonucleotide probes. For both basins, significant differences in total prokaryotic abundance and phylogenetic composition were observed among oxic, anoxic, and transitional (redoxcline) waters. Epsilon-proteobacteria, Crenarchaeota, and Eutyarchaeota were more prevalent in the redoxclines, where previous studies reported high rates of chemoautotrophic production relative to those in waters above and below the redoxclines. Relative abundances of Archaea in both systems varied between 1% and 28% of total prokaryotes, depending on depth. The prokaryotic community composition varied between the two anoxic basins, consistent with distinct geochemical and physical conditions. In the Black Sea, the relative contributions of group I Crenarchaeota (median, 5.5%) to prokaryotic communities were significantly higher (P < 0.001; n = 20) than those of group II Euryarchaeota (median, 2.9%). In contrast, their proportions were nearly equivalent in the Cariaco Basin. Beta-proteobacteria were unexpectedly common throughout the Cariaco Basin's water column, accounting for an average of 47% of 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI)-stained cells. This group was below the detection limit (< 1%) in the Black Sea samples. Compositional differences between basins may reflect temporal variability in microbial populations and/or systematic differences in environmental conditions and the populations for which they select.

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