4.6 Article

Assessing sub-seafloor microbial activity by combined stable isotope probing with deuterated water and 13C-bicarbonate

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 1517-1527

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02739.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG
  2. ERC
  3. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sub-seafloor sediments are populated by large numbers of microbial cells but not much is known about their metabolic activities, growth rates and carbon assimilation pathways. Here we introduce a new method enabling the sensitive detection of microbial lipid production and the distinction of auto- and heterotrophic carbon assimilation. Application of this approach to anoxic sediments from a Swedish fjord allowed to compare the activity of different functional groups, the growth and turnover times of the bacterial and archaeal communities. The assay involves dual stable isotope probing (SIP) with deuterated water (D2O) and 13CDIC (dissolved inorganic carbon). Culture experiments confirmed that the D content in newly synthesized lipids is in equilibrium with the D content in labelled water, independent of whether the culture grew hetero- or autotrophically. The ratio of 13CDIC to D2O incorporation enables distinction between these two carbon pathways in studies of microbial cultures and in environmental communities. Furthermore, D2O-SIP is sufficiently sensitive to detect the formation of few hundred cells per day in a gram of sediment. In anoxic sediments from a Swedish fjord, we found that > 99% of newly formed lipids were attributed to predominantly heterotrophic bacteria. The production rate of bacterial lipids was highest in the top 5 cm and decreased 60-fold below this depth while the production rate of archaeal lipids was rather low throughout the top meter of seabed. The contrasting patterns in the rates of archaeal and bacterial lipid formation indicate that the factors controlling the presence of these two lipid groups must differ fundamentally.

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