4.6 Article

Phylogeny and distribution of nitrate-storing Beggiatoa spp. in coastal marine sediments

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 523-533

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2003.00440.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Filamentous sulphide-oxidizing Beggiatoa spp. often occur in large numbers in the coastal seabed without forming visible mats on the sediment surface. We studied the diversity, population structure and the nitrate-storing capability of such bacteria in the Danish Limfjorden and the German Wadden Sea. Their distribution was compared to the vertical gradients of O-2 , NO3 (-) and H-2 S as measured by microsensors. The main Beggiatoa spp. populations occurred in a 0.5-3 cm thick intermediate zone, below the depth of oxygen and nitrate penetration but above the zone of free sulphide. The Beggiatoa spp. filaments were found to store nitrate, presumably in liquid vacuoles up to a concentration of 370 mM NO3 (-) , similar to the related large marine sulphur bacteria, Thioploca and Thiomargarita . The observations indicate that marine Beggiatoa spp. can live anaerobically and conserve energy by coupling sulphide oxidation with the reduction of nitrate to dinitrogen and/or ammonia. Calculations of the diffusive nitrate flux and the potential sulphide oxidation by Beggiatoa spp. show that the bacteria may play a critical role for the sulphur cycling and the nitrogen balance in these coastal environments. 16S rDNA sequence analysis shows a large diversity of these uncultured, nitrate-storing Beggiatoa spp. Smaller (9-17 mum wide) and larger (33-40 mum wide) Beggiatoa spp. represent novel phylogenetic clusters distinct from previously sequenced, large marine Beggiatoa spp. and Thioploca spp. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of the natural Beggiatoa spp. populations showed that filament width is a conservative character of each phylogenetic species but a given filament width may represent multiple phylogenetic species in a mixed population.

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