4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

The biodiversity of subaerophytic phototrophic biofilms from Maltese hypogea

期刊

FOTTEA
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 187-201

出版社

CZECH PHYCOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.5507/fot.2011.018

关键词

catacombs; cyanobacteria; cyanoprokaryotes; hypogea; Leptolyngbya; microalgae; Oscillatoriales; phototrophic biofilms; Stigonematales; subaerophytic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study focuses on a description of the biodiversity of subaerial phototrophic biofilms occurring on archaeological surfaces in Maltese hypogean environments, namely St Paul's, St Agatha's and Abbatija tad-Dejr Catacombs, all situated in Rabat and the ancient Hal Saflieni Hypogeum at Paola, Malta. Direct observation of the biofilms, carried out using light (LM), epifluorescent and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), allowed the description of the major cyanobacterial and microalgal taxa, and also the associated heterotrophic microorganisms, mainly actinobacteria. Some biofilm microorganisms were able to grow in culture and this allowed the isolation of cyanobacterial, microalgal and chemoorganotrophic bacterial strains. Thylakoid arrangement and cell division were examined using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The cytomorphology of isolated microorganisms was described. The undisputed phototrophic protagonists in these subaerial biofilms of Maltese hypogean environments were the non heterocytous (Oscillatorialean) cyanobacteria. In order to increase the limited data available for Leptolyngbya spp. from aerophytic epilithic biofilms in catacombs, the 16S rRNA genes of isolated Leptolyngbya strains were sequenced and compared with those obtained for related strains. Phylogenetic trees of cyanobacterial 16S rRNA sequences were constructed using parsimony and Bayesian analyses. Microorganisms forming biofilms in Maltese hypogea were found to be similar, both cytomorphologically and genetically, to those colonising lithic surfaces of caves and catacombs in other Mediterranean countries.

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

4.3
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