4.6 Article

Biogeography of the purple nonsulfur bacterium Rhodopseudomonas palustris

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 69, 期 9, 页码 5186-5191

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.69.9.5186-5191.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The biogeography of the purple nonsulfur bacterium Rhodopseudomonas palustris on a local scale was investigated. Thirty clones of phototrophic bacteria were isolated from each of five unevenly spaced sampling locations in freshwater marsh sediments along a linear 10-m transect, and a total of 150 clones were characterized by BOX-PCR genomic DNA fingerprinting. Cluster analysis of 150 genomic fingerprints yielded 26 distinct genotypes, and 106 clones constituted four major genotypes that were repeatedly isolated. Representatives of these four major genotypes were tentatively identified as R. palustris based on phylogentic analyses of 16S rRNA gene sequences. The differences in the genomic fingerprint patterns among the four major genotypes were accompanied by differences in phenotypic characteristics. These phenotypic differences included differences in the kinetics of carbon source use, suggesting that there may be functional differences with possible ecological significance among these clonal linages. Morisita-Horn similarity coefficients (C-MH), which were used to compare the numbers of common genotypes found at pairs of sampling locations, showed that there was substantial similarity between locations that were 1 cm apart (C-MH, greater than or equal to0.95) but there was almost no similarity between locations that were greater than or equal to9 m apart (C-MH, less than or equal to0.25). These calculations showed there was a gradual decrease in similarity among the five locations as a function of distance and that clones of R. palustris were lognormally distributed along the linear 10-m transect. These data indicate that natural populations of R. palustris are assemblages of genetically distinct ecotypes and that the distribution of each ecotypes is patchy.

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