4.7 Article

Diversity and abundance of anammox bacterial community in the deep-ocean surface sediment from equatorial Pacific

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 89, 期 4, 页码 1233-1241

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-010-2925-4

关键词

Anammox; 16S rRNA gene; hzo gene; Surface sediment; Western pacific warm pool

资金

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-QN207]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30800032, 41076095, 40930847]
  3. MEL Advanced Visiting Scholarship [MELRS0911]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The community structure and diversity of anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) bacteria in the surface sediments of equatorial Pacific were investigated by phylogenic analysis of 16S rRNA and hydrazine oxidoreductase (hzo) genes and PCoA (principal coordinates analysis) statistical analysis. Results indicated that 16S rRNA and hzo sequences in the P2 (off the center of western Pacific warm pool) and P3 (in the eastern equatorial Pacific) sites all belong to the Candidatus Scalindua, the dominate anammox bacteria in the low-temperature marine environment proved by previous studies. However, in the P1 site (in center of warm pool of western Pacific), large part of 16S rRNA gene sequences formed a separated cluster. Meanwhile, hzo gene sequences from P1 sediment also grouped into a single cluster. PCoA analysis demonstrated that the anammox community structure in the P1 has significant geographical distributional difference from that of P2, P3, and other marine environments based on 16S rRNA and hzo genes. The abundances of anammox bacteria in surface sediments of equatorial Pacific were quantified by q-PCR analysis of hzo genes, which ranged from 3.98 x 10(3) to 1.17 x 10(4) copies g(-1) dry sediments. These results suggested that a special anammox bacteria phylotypes exist in the surface sediment of the western Pacific warm pool, which adapted to the specific habitat and maybe involved in the nitrogen loss process from the fixed inventory in the habitat.

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