4.5 Article

Activity and community structure of methane-oxidising bacteria in a wet meadow soil

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 247-257

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00986.x

关键词

methane; methane-oxidising bacterium; microbial community analysis; pmoA; Methylocystis; Methylocapsa; Methylomicrobium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structure and activity of the methane-oxidising microbial community in a wet meadow soil in Germany were investigated using biogeochemical, cultivation, and molecular fingerprinting techniques. Both methane from the atmosphere and methane produced in anaerobic subsurface soil were oxidised. The specific affinity (first-order rate constant) for methane consumption was highest in the top 20 cm of soil and the apparent half-saturation constant was 137-300 nM CH4, a value intermediate to measured values in wetland soils versus well-aerated upland soils. Most-probable-number (MPN) counting of methane-oxidising bacteria followed by isolation and characterisation of strains from the highest positive dilution steps suggested that the most abundant member of the methane-oxidising community was a Methylocystis strain (10(5)-10(7) cells g(-1) d.w. soil). Calculations based on kinetic data suggested that this cell density was sufficient to account for the observed methane oxidation activity in the soil. DNA extraction directly from the same soil samples, followed by PCR amplification and comparative sequence analyses of the pmoA gene, also detected Methylocystis. However, molecular community fingerprinting analyses revealed a more diverse and dynamic picture of the methane-oxidising community. Retrieved pmoA sequences included, besides those closely related to Methylocystis spp., others related to the genera Methylomicrobium and Methylocapsa, and there were differences across samples which were not evident in MPN analyses. (C) 2002 Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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