4.7 Article

Extracellular plant DNA in Geneva groundwater and traditional artesian drinking water fountains

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 75, 期 4, 页码 498-504

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.12.048

关键词

Plant DNA; Transport; Groundwater; Geneva basin

资金

  1. European Community 5th RTD program [QLK3-CT-2001-02242]
  2. Ernst and Lucie Scmidheiny Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DNA, as the signature of life, has been extensively studied in a wide range of environments. While DNA analysis has become central to work on natural gene exchange, forensic analyses, soil bioremediation, genetically modified organisms, exobiology, and palaeontology, fundamental questions about DNA resistance to degradation remain. This paper investigated on the presence of plant DNA in groundwater and artesian fountain (groundwater-fed) samples, which relates to the movement and persistence of DNA in the environment. The study was performed in the groundwater and in the fountains, which are considered as a traditional artesian drinking water in Geneva Champagne Basin. DNA from water samples was extracted, analysed and quantified. Plant gene sequences were detected using PCR amplification based on 18S rRNA gene primers specific for eukaryotes. Physicochemical parameters of water samples including temperature, pH, conductivity, organic matter, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and total organic carbon (TOC) were measured throughout the study. The results revealed that important quantities of plant DNA can be found in the groundwater. PCR amplification based on 18S rDNA, cloning, RFLP analysis and sequencing demonstrated the presence of plant DNA including Vitis rupestris, Vitis berlandieri, Polygonum sp. Soltis, Boopis graminea, and Sinapis alba in the water samples. Our observations support the notion of plant DNA release, long-term persistence and movement in the unsaturated medium as well as in groundwater aquifers. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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