4.3 Article

Culture-dependent and culture-independent diversity surveys target different bacteria: a case study in a freshwater sample

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10482-011-9583-0

关键词

Culture-dependent; Culture-independent; DGGE; 454 Pyrosequencing; Freshwater; Bacterial diversity

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [PTDC/AMB/70825/2006, SFRH/BD/27978/2006]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/AMB/70825/2006, PD/BD/139062/2018, SFRH/BD/27978/2006] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compared with culture-independent approaches, traditionally used culture-dependent methods have a limited capacity to characterize water microbiota. Nevertheless, for almost a century the latter have been optimized to detect and quantify relevant bacteria. A pertinent question is if culture-independent diversity surveys give merely an extended perspective of the bacterial diversity or if, even with a higher coverage, focus on a different set of organisms. We compared the diversity and phylogeny of bacteria in a freshwater sample recovered by currently used culture-dependent and culture-independent methods (DGGE and 454 pyrosequencing). The culture-dependent diversity survey presented lower coverage than the other methods. However, it allowed bacterial identifications to the species level, in contrast with the other procedures that rarely produced identifications below the order. Although the predominant bacterial phyla detected by both approaches were the same (Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes), sequence similarity analysis showed that, in general, different operational taxonomical units were targeted by each method. The observation that culture-dependent and independent approaches target different organisms has implications for the use of the latter for studies in which taxonomic identification has a predictive value. In comparison to DGGE, 454 pyrosequencing method had a higher capacity to explore the bacterial richness and to detect cultured organisms, being also less laborious.

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

4.3
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