4.6 Article

Isolation of a methanogen from deep marine sediments that contain methane hydrates, and description of Methanoculleus submarinus sp nov.

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 69, 期 6, 页码 3311-3316

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.69.6.3311-3316.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We isolated a methanogen from deep in the sediments of the Nankai Trough off the eastern coast of Japan. At the sampling site, the water was 950 m deep and the sediment core was collected at 247 m below the sediment surface. The isolated methanogen was named Nankai-1. Cells of Nankai-1 were nonmotile and highly irregular coccoids (average diameter, 0.8 to 2 mum) and grew with hydrogen or formate as a catabolic substrate. Cells required acetate as a carbon source. Yeast extract and peptones were not required but increased the growth rate. The cells were mesophilic, growing most rapidly at 45degreesC (no growth at less than or equal to10degreesC or greater than or equal to55degreesC). Cells grew with a maximum specific growth rate of 2.43 day(-1) at 45degreesC. Cells grew at pH values between 5.0 and 8.7 but did not grow at pH 4.7 or 9.0. Strain Nankai-1 grew in a wide range of salinities, from 0.1 to 1.5 M Na+. The described phenotypic characteristics of this novel isolate were consistent with the in situ environment of the Nankai Trough. This is the first report of a methanogenic isolate from methane hydrate-bearing sediments. Phylogenetic analysis of its 16S rRNA gene sequence indicated that it is most closely related to Methanoculleus marisnigri (99.1% sequence similarity), but DNA hybridization experiments indicated a DNA sequence similarity of only 49%. Strain Nankai-1 was also found to be phenotypically similar to M. marisnigri, but two major phenotypic differences were found: strain Nankai-1 does not require peptones, and it grows fastest at a much higher temperature. We propose a new species, Methanoculleus submarinus, with strain Nankai-1 as the type strain.

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