4.6 Article

Characterization of microbial community structure in Gulf of Mexico gas hydrates: Comparative analysis of DNA- and RNA-derived clone libraries

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 71, 期 6, 页码 3235-3247

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.6.3235-3247.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The characterization of microbial assemblages within solid gas hydrate, especially those that may be physiologically active under in situ hydrate conditions, is essential to gain a better understanding of the effects and contributions of microbial activities in Gulf of Mexico (GoM) hydrate ecosystems. In this study, the composition of the Bacteria and Archaea communities was determined by 16S rRNA phylogenetic analyses of clone libraries derived from RNA and DNA extracted from sediment-entrained hydrate (SEH) and interior hydrate (111). The hydrate was recovered from an exposed mound located in the northern GoM continental slope with a hydrate chipper designed for use on the manned-submersible Johnson Sea Link (water depth, 550 m). Previous geochemical analyses indicated that there was increased metabolic activity in the SEH compared to the III layer (B. N. Orcutt, A. Boetius, S. K. Lugo, I.R. Macdonald, V. A. Samarkin, and S. Joye, Chem. Geol. 205:239-251). Phylogenetic analysis of RNA- and DNA-derived clones indicated that there was greater diversity in the SEH libraries than in the III libraries. A majority of the clones obtained from the metabolically active fraction of the microbial community were most closely related to putative sulfate-reducing bacteria and anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaea. Several novel bacterial and archaeal phylotypes for which there were no previously identified closely related cultured isolates were detected in the RNA- and DNA-derived clone libraries. This study was the first phylogenetic analysis of the metabolically active fraction of the microbial community extant in the distinct SEH and III layers of GoM gas hydrate.

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