4.7 Article

Carbon isotope signatures of fatty acids in Geobacter metallireducens and Shewanella algae

期刊

CHEMICAL GEOLOGY
卷 195, 期 1-4, 页码 17-28

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2541(02)00386-8

关键词

iron-reducing bacteria; Geobacter metallireducens; Shewanella algae; lipid biomarkers; carbon isotopes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this study was to examine carbon isotope fractionations associated with lipid biomarkers of different iron-reducing bacteria. Experiments were conducted using a Geobacter metallireducens strain GS-15 (grown on acetate) and a Shewanella algae strain BrY (grown on lactate). Both organisms were grown anaerobically using ferric citrate as the electron acceptor. The delta(13)C of total biomass of GS-15 was -34.3parts per thousand, which was about 7.2 parts per thousand lower than the substrate acetate (delta(13)C = -27.1 parts per thousand). The delta(13)C of total biomass of BrY was - 30.0 parts per thousand, which was about 7.1 parts per thousand lower than the substrate lactate (delta(13)C = - 22.9 parts per thousand). Isotopic fractionations (epsilon) between fatty acid sand biomass within the same strain were consistently greater for BrY (- 10.9 parts per thousand to - 15.5 parts per thousand) than for GS-15 (-4.5 parts per thousand to - 8.6 parts per thousand). The lipid biomarker 10Me16:0, which was only found in GS-15 cultures, had an e value of - 5.39 +/- 0.73 parts per thousand (n = 2). The differences in fractionation may reflect the carbon assimilation pathways by which the fatty acids were synthesized: the smaller fractionations in GS-15 may be associated with the tricarboxylic cycle, whereas the greater fractionations in BrY may be associated with the serine pathway. The difference in isotope fractionations between lipid biomarkers and total biomass of different iron-reducing bacteria may be used to enhance our understanding of the microbial community structure in an iron-reducing environment. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

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