4.5 Article

Spatial comparison of total vs. active bacterial populations by coupling genetic fingerprinting and clone library analyses in the NW Mediterranean Sea

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 30-42

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00591.x

关键词

CE-SSCP fingerprinting; 16S rRNA; spatial distribution; bacterial diversity and activity Prochlorococcus; SAR11; Gammaproteobacteria

资金

  1. European Commission
  2. Ramon y Cajal
  3. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [REN2003-08333]
  4. FEDER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spatial distributions of both total (i.e. 16S rDNA-based fingerprints) and active (i.e. 16S rRNA-based fingerprints) bacterial populations, together with total bacterial activity measured by H-3-leucine incorporation, were studied along a 98 km transect in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Capillary electrophoresis-single strand conformation polymorphism (CE-SSCP) fingerprinting was coupled to a clone library, allowing CE-SSCP peaks identification and the monitoring of the spatial variation of bacterial phylotypes. Up to 80% of the community peaks matched those obtained from clone library sequences, accounting for 86.7% of the total fingerprinting area. A good agreement was found between the relative abundance of Prochlorococcus in the CE-SSCP fingerprints and flow cytometry counts (r(2)=0.66, P < 0.05). The largest differences between total and active bacterial populations distribution were found at depths with higher bacterial activity (i.e. surface and deep chlorophyll maximum, DCM). SAR11 at the surface and Gammaproteobacteria at the DCM were the most abundant groups on the 16S rDNA-based fingerprints. However, their ratio of relative importance between rRNA : rDNA was < 1 in most cases. Conversely, ratios observed for Prochlorococcus, were consistently > 1 both at the surface and at the DCM. These results emphasize the need for combining rDNA- and rRNA-based analyses to better understand the functional role of individual bacterial populations in situ.

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