4.6 Article

The effect of anthropogenic arsenic contamination on the earthworm microbiome

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 1884-1896

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.12712

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Natural Environmental Research Council Environmental Bioinformatics Centre (NEBC)
  2. Royal Society
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh020008] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [ceh020008] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Earthworms are globally distributed and perform essential roles for soil health and microbial structure. We have investigated the effect of an anthropogenic contamination gradient on the bacterial community of the keystone ecological species Lumbricus rubellus through utilizing 16S rRNA pyrosequencing for the first time to establish the microbiome of the host and surrounding soil. The earthworm-associated microbiome differs from the surrounding environment which appears to be a result of both filtering and stimulation likely linked to the altered environment associated with the gut micro-habitat (neutral pH, anoxia and increased carbon substrates). We identified a core earthworm community comprising Proteobacteria (approximate to 50%) and Actinobacteria (approximate to 30%), with lower abundances of Bacteroidetes (approximate to 6%) and Acidobacteria (approximate to 3%). In addition to the known earthworm symbiont (Verminephrobacter sp.), we identified a potential host-associated Gammaproteobacteria species (Serratia sp.) that was absent from soil yet observed in most earthworms. Although a distinct bacterial community defines these earthworms, clear family- and species-level modification were observed along an arsenic and iron contamination gradient. Several taxa observed in uncontaminated control microbiomes are suppressed by metal/metalloid field exposure, including eradication of the hereto ubiquitously associated Verminephrobacter symbiont, which raises implications to its functional role in the earthworm microbiome.

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