4.6 Article

Amplicon pyrosequencing reveals spatial and temporal consistency in diazotroph assemblages of the Acropora millepora microbiome

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 3345-3359

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.12366

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS), AIMS@JCU
  2. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef (James Cook University)
  3. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Mexico (CONACYT) (Mexico)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diazotrophic bacteria potentially play an important functional role in supplying fixed nitrogen to the coral holobiont, but the value of such a partnership depends on the stability of the association. Here we evaluate the composition of diazotroph assemblages associated with the coral Acropora millepora throughout four seasons and at two reefs, an inshore and an offshore (mid-shelf) reef on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Amplicon pyrosequencing of the nifH gene revealed that diazotrophs are ubiquitous members of the bacterial community associated with A.millepora. Rhizobia (65% of the overall nifH sequences retrieved) and particularly Bradyrhizobia sp.-affiliated sequences (>50% of rhizobia sequences) dominated diazotrophic assemblages across all coral samples from the two sites throughout the year. In contrast to this consistency in the spatial and temporal patterns of occurrence of diazotroph assemblages, the overall coral-associated bacterial community, assessed through amplicon sequencing of the general bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene, differed between inshore and mid-shelf reef locations. Sequences associated with the Oceanospirillales family, particularly with Endozoicomonas sp., dominated bacterial communities associated with inshore corals. Although rhizobia represented a variable and generally small fraction of the overall bacterial community associated with A.millepora, consistency in the structure of these diazotrophic assemblages suggests that they have a functional role in the coral holobiont.

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