DOCSLIB.ORG

Table S1 Geochemical Parameters of the Investigated Hot Springs in This Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table S1 Geochemical Parameters of the Investigated Hot Springs in This Study Table S1 Geochemical parameters of the investigated hot springs in this study - - 2- - + Cl NO2 SO4 Br NO3 Li Na NH4 K Mg Ca Sample (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) -1 156.8 50.2 83.4 15.9 32.8 9.2 658.7 16.7 55.9 11.3 51.3 DG-4 155.9 36.3 76.5 9.9 27.7 10.6 772.3 16.7 74.1 5.1 49.7 DG-5 167.9 60.5 47.9 9.6 27.5 12.6 1055.7 35.2 126.0 8.9 91.9 DG-14 156.2 29.8 8.4 n.a. 26.6 9.6 659.3 5.4 70.7 3.6 20.4 DG-16 160.1 38.1 62.4 9.5 27.2 11.8 817.7 16.6 90.0 3.5 21.9 QZM-4 277.7 24.3 327.8 n.d. 28.8 3.9 291.2 28.5 47.9 38.3 316.1 QZM-5 273.7 28.0 492.3 11.7 30.3 3.9 284.0 28.0 60.0 48.3 536.5 QZM-6 282.1 62.9 460.6 n.d. 28.6 3.9 297.2 43.4 63.5 47.7 431.8 QZM-7 285.9 54.6 431.9 12.1 29.9 3.7 292.4 58.7 65.9 38.1 142.9 QZM-9 212.5 23.8 461.2 n.d. 30.0 2.6 187.9 3.0 21.2 33.7 264.6 QZM-10 128.6 19.6 252.7 n.d. 31.1 1.7 128.3 1.3 17.5 18.4 138.3 QZM-11 214.2 28.2 417.9 n.d. 30.8 2.8 202.1 3.2 24.5 39.6 328.0 QZM-12 208.8 31.1 381.5 n.d. 30.7 2.8 210.3 6.6 30.5 30.9 252.8 QZM-13 105.9 41.1 350.2 n.d. 32.7 1.3 112.6 8.2 23.8 39.8 259.1 QZM-14 208.4 21.8 354.7 n.d. 32.4 2.4 162.0 0.8 19.8 26.6 188.9 1 Table S2 The dsrB gene clones from the investigated hot springs and their closest relatives in the GenBank GenBank accession QZM QZM QZM QZM Identity OTU ID QZM-9 QZM-10 QZM-11 QZM-12 QZM-13 QZM-14 DG-1 DG-4 DG-5 DG-14 DG-16 No. of the closest -4 -5 -6 -7 (%) reference OTU1 12 5 4 5 3 1 11 8 2 4 12 2 0 0 0 AWH63881.1 93% OTU2 13 12 10 10 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AGJ00858.1 95% OTU3 0 4 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AFK32735.1 95% OTU4 0 7 4 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH64713.1 93% OTU5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APA21667.1 91% OTU6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AHZ11304.1 94% OTU7 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH63868.1 87% OTU8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WP_018086255.1 99% OTU9 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AGR84841.1 92% OTU10 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACO35898.1 97% OTU11 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH64381.1 90% OTU12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ABX65363.1 96% OTU13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AHZ11364.1 97% OTU14 0 0 0 0 14 3 6 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 AWW01246.1 93% OTU15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH64232.1 94% OTU16 0 0 0 0 20 13 7 4 11 18 0 0 0 0 0 AWH63823.1 93% OTU17 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACQ73016.1 93% OTU18 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH64728.1 96% OTU19 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 AAO61660.1 95% OTU20 0 0 0 0 9 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BAF34624.1 93% OTU21 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH63978.1 92% 2 Table S2 The dsrB gene clones from the investigated hot springs and their closest relatives in the GenBank (Continued) GenBank accession QZM QZM QZM QZM Identity OTU ID QZM-9 QZM-10 QZM-11 QZM-12 QZM-13 QZM-14 DG-1 DG-4 DG-5 DG-14 DG-16 No. of the closest -4 -5 -6 -7 (%) reference OTU22 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 BAF34624.1 90% OTU23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH64728.1 94% OTU24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 KUK12289.1 94% OTU25 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH63881.1 94% OTU26 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AWH63938.1 95% OTU27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 WP_088553243.1 82% OTU28 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ACP30533.1 94% OTU29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APA21669.1 94% OTU30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 21 10 8 2 AFK32735.1 95% OTU31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 AWH64662.1 94% OTU32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 AHZ11384.1 99% OTU33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 AFK32735.1 98% OTU34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3 ABK90639.1 98% OTU35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 AWW01163.1 88% OTU36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 AFK32737.1 94% OTU37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ALN40079.1 90% OTU38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 AGR84883.1 90% OTU39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 AWH64526.1 93% OTU40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 RPI94506.1 97% OTU41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 AFK32730.1 85% 3 Figure S1. Neighbor-joining tree showing the phylogenetic relationships of the deduced DsrB protein sequences translated from dsrB gene clone sequences obtained in this study to closely related sequences from the GenBank database. One representative clone type within each OTU is shown, and the number of clones within each OTU is shown in parentheses. The sequences from this study are shown in bold type, and they are coded as follows for the example of QZM-4: dsrB amino acid sequences of clone No. 4 from the Quzhuomu hot spring (QZM) sediment in Tibetan. The scale bar indicates the Jukes-Cantor distance. Bootstrap values of (1000 replicates) > 50% are shown. Fig S1A Desulfobacterales Desulfovibrionales Desulfobacterales Unclassified -Group I Deltaproteobacteria Desulfobacterales Unclassified -Group II Unclassified -Group III Syntrophobacterales Clostridia Nitrospirales 0.05 4 Fig S1B OTU3_QZM-6-20(7) OTU30_DG-16-26(2) OTU30_DG-14-6(8) OTU30_DG-5-1(10) OTU30_DG-4-1(21) OTU30_DG-1-4(44) OTU3_QZM-9-13(2) OTU3_QZM-7-17(6) OTU3_QZM-5-2(4) OTU41_DG-1-51(1) OTU6_QZM-6-10(1) Desulfosarcina cetonica(AAN31399.1) Desulfosarcina sp(AAK71938.1) OTU36_DG-14-18(2) OTU36_DG-16-4(9) Deltaproteobacteria Olavius ilvae(AAY97994.2)_Mediterranean Sea sediment Uncultured bacterium drsB(AFK32735.1)_Saline lakes of Qaidam OTU33_DG-14-1(13) OTU33_DG-16-9(3) Uncultured bacterium drsB(CBX19542.1)_Marine steel structures Desulfovibrionales Desulfobacterales Unclassified - Group I Desulfobacterales Unclassified - Group II Unclassified - Group III Syntrophobacterales Clostridia Nitrospirales 0.05 Fig S1C Desulfobacterales Desulfonatronum lacustre(AAL57452.1) Desulfovermiculus halophilus(WP_027370031.1) Desulfonatronovibrio hydrogenovorans(WP_028575105.1) Desulfonatronovibrio hydrogenovorans(AAL57468.1) Desulfonatronovibrio magnus(WP_045212626.1) Desulfonatronospira thiodismutans(WP_008871012.1) Desulfonauticus submarinus(AAO27365.1)_Deep-sea hydrothermal vent Desulfonauticus sp.(KUJ96767.1)_Oil reservoir OTU10_QZM-6-9(3) OTU10_QZM-7-31(2) Desulfomicrobium orale(AAM03450.2) Deltaproteobacteria Desulfomicrobium escambiense(WP_028578006.1) Desulfomicrobium baculatum(WP_012805492.1) Desulfomicrobium norvegicum(BAB55558.1) Desulfomicrobium sp.(AAK71940.1)_Estuarine sediments Desulfomicrobium escambiense(BAB55556) Desulfobacterales Unclassified - Group I Desulfobacterales Unclassified - Group II Unclassified - Group III Syntrophobacterales Clostridia Nitrospirales 0.05 5 Fig S1D Desulfobacterales Desulfovibrionales OTU21_QZM-9-25(1) Desulfatiglans anilini(AAQ05940.2) sulfate-reducing bacterium mXyS1(AAQ05942.1) OTU17_QZM-9-1(1) OTU22_QZM-10-22(1) OTU22_QZM-14-22(2) Desulfobacterales OTU22_QZM-12-10(6) OTU20_QZM-9-11(9) OTU20_QZM-10-7(6) OTU20_QZM-11-16(1) Deltaproteobacteria OTU20_QZM-12-16(7) OTU39_DG-16-6(2) OTU15_QZM-9-8(1) OTU4_QZM-5-6(7) Unclassified - Group I OTU4_QZM-6-4(4) OTU4_QZM-7-4(8) OTU4_QZM-9-9(7) Desulfobacterales Unclassified - Group II Unclassified - Group III Syntrophobacterales Clostridia Nitrospirales 0.05 Fig S1E Desulfobacterales Desulfovibrionales Desulfobacterales Unclassified-Group I Desulfobulbus propionicus(AAG28586.1) Desulfobulbus rhabdoformis(CAB95039.1) Desulfofustis glycolicus(AAL57456.1) Desulfobacterales Desulforhopalus singaporensis(AAL57466.1) OTU13_QZM-7-24(1) OTU32_DG-5-4(14) OTU34_DG-14-4(12) OTU34_DG-16-3(3) OTU2_QZM-4-7(13) Deltaproteobacteria Unclassified-Group II OTU2_QZM-5-9(12) OTU2_QZM-6-1(10) OTU2_QZM-7-2(10) OTU2_QZM-9-22(3) OTU2_QZM-12-23(1) OTU9_QZM-6-24(1) OTU9_QZM-7-23(1) OTU19_QZM-13-13(3) Unclassified-Group III OTU19_QZM-9-10(2) OTU19_QZM-12-30(1) OTU19_QZM-14-17(4) Syntrophobacterales Clostridia Nitrospirales 0.05 6 Fig S1F Desulfobacterales Desulfovibrionales Desulfobacterales Unclassified- Group I Desulfobacterales Unclassified- Group II Unclassified- Group III Desulfobacca acetoxidans (WP_013706581.1)_Three Gorges Reservoir Desulfobacca acetoxidans(AAQ05936.1) Uncultured bacterium drsB(ACQ73012.1)_Evander Mine Desulfotomaculum sp.(ABG91059.1)_Mafic sill OTU5_QZM-5-16(1) Uncultured bacterium drsB(AHZ11410.1)_Wetland soil of Florida Uncultured bacterium drsB(BAO00863.1)_Marine sediment Uncultured bacterium drsB(AID66180.1)_Marine sediment, Aarhus Bay station M1 OTU26_QZM-7-36(1) OTU11_QZM-7-16(3) OTU31_DG-1-41(1) Uncultured bacterium drsB(ABK90668.1)_Groundwater Uncultured bacterium drsB(AAO61099.2)_Schloeppnerbrunnen fen soil Uncultured bacterium drsB(AGI44391.1)_High arsenic shallow aquifers Uncultured bacterium drsB(ABB55406.1)_Groundwater OTU29_QZM-5-34(1) OTU25_QZM-5-26(1) OTU25_QZM-7-26(2) Deltaproteobacteria OTU1_QZM-4-1(12) OTU1_QZM-5-1(5) OTU1_QZM-6-12(4) OTU1_QZM-7-12(5) Syntrophobacterales OTU1_QZM-9-3(3) OTU1_QZM-10-25(1) OTU1_QZM-11-1(11) OTU1_QZM-12-2(8) OTU1_QZM-13-1(2) OTU1_QZM-14-20(4) OTU1_DG-1-12(12) OTU1_DG-4-2(2) OTU14_QZM-13-7(3) OTU14_QZM-14-10(4) OTU14_QZM-12-1(5) OTU14_QZM-11-9(6) OTU14_QZM-10-5(3) OTU14_QZM-9-5(14) OTU18_QZM-9-21(1) OTU16_QZM-10-1(13) OTU16_QZM-9-12(20) OTU16_QZM-11-7(7) OTU16_QZM-14-1(18) OTU23_QZM-12-14(1) OTU16_QZM-12-22(4) OTU16_QZM-13-4(11) Clostridia Nitrospirales 0.05 Fig S1G Desulfobacterales Desulfovibrionales Desulfobacterales Unclassified- Group I Desulfobacterales Deltaproteobacteria Unclassified- Grounp II Unclassified- Group III Deltaproteobacteria-Syntrophobacterales OTU35_DG-14-9(1) OTU38_DG-16-2(1) OTU37_DG-14-7(1) OTU7_QZM-6-15(1) OTU7_QZM-7-14(2) OTU8_QZM-6-18(4) Clostridia OTU27_QZM-14-27(1) OTU24_QZM-14-9(1) Desulfotomaculum aeronauticum (AAK13054.1) Desulfotomaculum ruminis (WP_013843668.1) Uncultured bacterium drsB (CAY87207.1) OTU12_QZM-7-13(1) OTU40_DG-16-22(1) OTU28_QZM-9-45(1) Nitrospirales OTU28_QZM-14-37(1) Thermodesulfovibrio yellowstonii (AAC24112.1) Thermodesulfovibrio islandicus (AAK83214.1) 0.05 7 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supplementary Information for Microbial Electrochemical Systems Outperform Fixed-Bed Biofilters for Cleaning-Up Urban Wastewater
    Electronic Supplementary Material (ESI) for Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Supplementary information for Microbial Electrochemical Systems outperform fixed-bed biofilters for cleaning-up urban wastewater AUTHORS: Arantxa Aguirre-Sierraa, Tristano Bacchetti De Gregorisb, Antonio Berná, Juan José Salasc, Carlos Aragónc, Abraham Esteve-Núñezab* Fig.1S Total nitrogen (A), ammonia (B) and nitrate (C) influent and effluent average values of the coke and the gravel biofilters. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. Fig. 2S Influent and effluent COD (A) and BOD5 (B) average values of the hybrid biofilter and the hybrid polarized biofilter. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. Fig. 3S Redox potential measured in the coke and the gravel biofilters Fig. 4S Rarefaction curves calculated for each sample based on the OTU computations. Fig. 5S Correspondence analysis biplot of classes’ distribution from pyrosequencing analysis. Fig. 6S. Relative abundance of classes of the category ‘other’ at class level. Table 1S Influent pre-treated wastewater and effluents characteristics. Averages ± SD HRT (d) 4.0 3.4 1.7 0.8 0.5 Influent COD (mg L-1) 246 ± 114 330 ± 107 457 ± 92 318 ± 143 393 ± 101 -1 BOD5 (mg L ) 136 ± 86 235 ± 36 268 ± 81 176 ± 127 213 ± 112 TN (mg L-1) 45.0 ± 17.4 60.6 ± 7.5 57.7 ± 3.9 43.7 ± 16.5 54.8 ± 10.1 -1 NH4-N (mg L ) 32.7 ± 18.7 51.6 ± 6.5 49.0 ± 2.3 36.6 ± 15.9 47.0 ± 8.8 -1 NO3-N (mg L ) 2.3 ± 3.6 1.0 ± 1.6 0.8 ± 0.6 1.5 ± 2.0 0.9 ± 0.6 TP (mg
    [Show full text]
  • Tree Scale: 1 D Bacteria P Desulfobacterota C Jdfr-97 O Jdfr-97 F Jdfr-97 G Jdfr-97 S Jdfr-97 Sp002010915 WGS ID MTPG01
    d Bacteria p Desulfobacterota c Thermodesulfobacteria o Thermodesulfobacteriales f Thermodesulfobacteriaceae g Thermodesulfobacterium s Thermodesulfobacterium commune WGS ID JQLF01 d Bacteria p Desulfobacterota c Thermodesulfobacteria o Thermodesulfobacteriales f Thermodesulfobacteriaceae g Thermosulfurimonas s Thermosulfurimonas dismutans WGS ID LWLG01 d Bacteria p Desulfobacterota c Desulfofervidia o Desulfofervidales f DG-60 g DG-60 s DG-60 sp001304365 WGS ID LJNA01 ID WGS sp001304365 DG-60 s DG-60 g DG-60 f Desulfofervidales o Desulfofervidia c Desulfobacterota p Bacteria d d Bacteria p Desulfobacterota c Desulfofervidia o Desulfofervidales f Desulfofervidaceae g Desulfofervidus s Desulfofervidus auxilii RS GCF 001577525 1 001577525 GCF RS auxilii Desulfofervidus s Desulfofervidus g Desulfofervidaceae f Desulfofervidales o Desulfofervidia c Desulfobacterota p Bacteria d d Bacteria p Desulfobacterota c Thermodesulfobacteria o Thermodesulfobacteriales f Thermodesulfatatoraceae g Thermodesulfatator s Thermodesulfatator atlanticus WGS ID ATXH01 d Bacteria p Desulfobacterota c Desulfobacteria o Desulfatiglandales f NaphS2 g 4484-190-2 s 4484-190-2 sp002050025 WGS ID MVDB01 ID WGS sp002050025 4484-190-2 s 4484-190-2 g NaphS2 f Desulfatiglandales o Desulfobacteria c Desulfobacterota p Bacteria d d Bacteria p Desulfobacterota c Thermodesulfobacteria o Thermodesulfobacteriales f Thermodesulfobacteriaceae g QOAM01 s QOAM01 sp003978075 WGS ID QOAM01 d Bacteria p Desulfobacterota c BSN033 o UBA8473 f UBA8473 g UBA8473 s UBA8473 sp002782605 WGS
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Desulfobacterales and Chromatiales on Sulfate Reduction in The
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.16.252635; this version posted November 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Impacts of Desulfobacterales and Chromatiales on sulfate reduction in the 2 subtropical mangrove ecosystem as revealed by SMDB analysis 3 Shuming Mo 1, †, Jinhui Li 1, †, Bin Li 2, Ran Yu 1, Shiqing Nie 1, Zufan Zhang 1, Jianping 4 Liao 3, Qiong Jiang 1, Bing Yan 2, *, and Chengjian Jiang 1, 2 * 5 1 State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Subtropical Agro- 6 bioresources, Guangxi Research Center for Microbial and Enzyme Engineering 7 Technology, College of Life Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 8 530004, China. 9 2 Guangxi Key Lab of Mangrove Conservation and Utilization, Guangxi Mangrove 10 Research Center, Guangxi Academy of Sciences, Beihai 536000, China. 11 3 School of Computer and Information Engineering, Nanning Normal University, 12 Nanning 530299, China. 13 † These authors contributed equally to this work. 14 *: Corresponding Author: 15 Tel: +86-771-3270736; Fax: +86-771-3237873 16 Email: [email protected] (CJ); [email protected] (BY) 17 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.16.252635; this version posted November 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbial Processes in Oil Fields: Culprits, Problems, and Opportunities
    Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. This chapter was originally published in the book Advances in Applied Microbiology, Vol 66, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who know you, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial From: Noha Youssef, Mostafa S. Elshahed, and Michael J. McInerney, Microbial Processes in Oil Fields: Culprits, Problems, and Opportunities. In Allen I. Laskin, Sima Sariaslani, and Geoffrey M. Gadd, editors: Advances in Applied Microbiology, Vol 66, Burlington: Academic Press, 2009, pp. 141-251. ISBN: 978-0-12-374788-4 © Copyright 2009 Elsevier Inc. Academic Press. Author's personal copy CHAPTER 6 Microbial Processes in Oil Fields: Culprits, Problems, and Opportunities Noha Youssef, Mostafa S. Elshahed, and Michael J. McInerney1 Contents I. Introduction 142 II. Factors Governing Oil Recovery 144 III. Microbial Ecology of Oil Reservoirs 147 A. Origins of microorganisms recovered from oil reservoirs 147 B. Microorganisms isolated from oil reservoirs 148 C. Culture-independent analysis of microbial communities in oil reservoirs 155 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Compile.Xlsx
    Silva OTU GS1A % PS1B % Taxonomy_Silva_132 otu0001 0 0 2 0.05 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Acidobacteria_un;Acidobacteria_un;Acidobacteria_un;Acidobacteria_un; otu0002 0 0 1 0.02 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Acidobacteriia;Solibacterales;Solibacteraceae_(Subgroup_3);PAUC26f; otu0003 49 0.82 5 0.12 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Aminicenantia;Aminicenantales;Aminicenantales_fa;Aminicenantales_ge; otu0004 1 0.02 7 0.17 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;AT-s3-28;AT-s3-28_or;AT-s3-28_fa;AT-s3-28_ge; otu0005 1 0.02 0 0 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Blastocatellia_(Subgroup_4);Blastocatellales;Blastocatellaceae;Blastocatella; otu0006 0 0 2 0.05 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Holophagae;Subgroup_7;Subgroup_7_fa;Subgroup_7_ge; otu0007 1 0.02 0 0 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;ODP1230B23.02;ODP1230B23.02_or;ODP1230B23.02_fa;ODP1230B23.02_ge; otu0008 1 0.02 15 0.36 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_17;Subgroup_17_or;Subgroup_17_fa;Subgroup_17_ge; otu0009 9 0.15 41 0.99 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_21;Subgroup_21_or;Subgroup_21_fa;Subgroup_21_ge; otu0010 5 0.08 50 1.21 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_22;Subgroup_22_or;Subgroup_22_fa;Subgroup_22_ge; otu0011 2 0.03 11 0.27 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_26;Subgroup_26_or;Subgroup_26_fa;Subgroup_26_ge; otu0012 0 0 1 0.02 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_5;Subgroup_5_or;Subgroup_5_fa;Subgroup_5_ge; otu0013 1 0.02 13 0.32 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_6;Subgroup_6_or;Subgroup_6_fa;Subgroup_6_ge; otu0014 0 0 1 0.02 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_6;Subgroup_6_un;Subgroup_6_un;Subgroup_6_un; otu0015 8 0.13 30 0.73 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_9;Subgroup_9_or;Subgroup_9_fa;Subgroup_9_ge;
    [Show full text]
  • Polyamine Distribution Profiles Among Some Members Within Delta-And Epsilon-Subclasses of Proteobacteria
    Microbiol. Cult. Coll. June. 2004. p. 3 ― 8 Vol. 20, No. 1 Polyamine Distribution Profiles among Some Members within Delta-and Epsilon-Subclasses of Proteobacteria Koei Hamana1）＊, Tomoko Saito1）, Mami Okada1）, and Masaru Niitsu2） 1）Department of Laboratory Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Gunma University, 39- 15 Showa-machi 3-chome, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8514, Japan 2）Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Josai University, Keyakidai 1-chome-1, Sakado, Saitama 350-0295, Japan Cellular polyamines of 18 species（13 genera）belonging to the delta and epsilon subclasses of the class Proteobacteria were analyzed by HPLC and GC. In the delta subclass, the four marine myxobacteria（the order Myxococcales）, Enhygromyxa salina, Haliangium ochroceum, Haliangium tepidum and Plesiocystis pacifica contained spermidine. Fe（III）-reducing two Geobacter species and two Pelobacter species belonging to the order Desulfuromonadales con- tained spermidine. Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus was absent in cellular polyamines. Bacteriovorax starrii contained putrescine and spermidine. Bacteriovorax stolpii contained spermidine and homo- spermidine. Spermidine was the major polyamine in the sulfate-reducing delta proteobacteria belonging to the genera Desulfovibrio, Desulfacinum, Desulfobulbus, Desulfococcus and Desulfurella, and some species of them contained cadaverine. Within the epsilon subclass, three Sulfurospirillum species ubiquitously contained spermidine and one of the three contained sper- midine and cadaverine. Thiomicrospora denitrificans contained cadaverine and spermidine as the major polyamine. These data show that cellular polyamine profiles can be used as a chemotaxonomic marker within delta and epsilon subclasses. Key words: polyamine, spermidine, homospermidine, Proteobacteria The class Proteobacteria is a major taxon of the 18, 26）. Fe（Ⅲ）-reducing members belonging to the gen- domain Bacteria and is phylogenetically divided into the era Pelobacter, Geobacter, Desulfuromonas and alpha, beta, gamma, delta and epsilon subclasses.
    [Show full text]
  • Variations in the Two Last Steps of the Purine Biosynthetic Pathway in Prokaryotes
    GBE Different Ways of Doing the Same: Variations in the Two Last Steps of the Purine Biosynthetic Pathway in Prokaryotes Dennifier Costa Brandao~ Cruz1, Lenon Lima Santana1, Alexandre Siqueira Guedes2, Jorge Teodoro de Souza3,*, and Phellippe Arthur Santos Marbach1,* 1CCAAB, Biological Sciences, Recoˆ ncavo da Bahia Federal University, Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brazil 2Agronomy School, Federal University of Goias, Goiania,^ Goias, Brazil 3 Department of Phytopathology, Federal University of Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/11/4/1235/5345563 by guest on 27 September 2021 *Corresponding authors: E-mails: [email protected]fla.br; [email protected]. Accepted: February 16, 2019 Abstract The last two steps of the purine biosynthetic pathway may be catalyzed by different enzymes in prokaryotes. The genes that encode these enzymes include homologs of purH, purP, purO and those encoding the AICARFT and IMPCH domains of PurH, here named purV and purJ, respectively. In Bacteria, these reactions are mainly catalyzed by the domains AICARFT and IMPCH of PurH. In Archaea, these reactions may be carried out by PurH and also by PurP and PurO, both considered signatures of this domain and analogous to the AICARFT and IMPCH domains of PurH, respectively. These genes were searched for in 1,403 completely sequenced prokaryotic genomes publicly available. Our analyses revealed taxonomic patterns for the distribution of these genes and anticorrelations in their occurrence. The analyses of bacterial genomes revealed the existence of genes coding for PurV, PurJ, and PurO, which may no longer be considered signatures of the domain Archaea. Although highly divergent, the PurOs of Archaea and Bacteria show a high level of conservation in the amino acids of the active sites of the protein, allowing us to infer that these enzymes are analogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Metagenomic Views of Microbial Dynamics Influenced By
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Metagenomic views of microbial dynamics infuenced by hydrocarbon seepage in sediments of the Gulf of Mexico Rui Zhao1, Zarath M. Summers2, Glenn D. Christman1, Kristin M. Yoshimura1 & Jennifer F. Biddle1* Microbial cells in the seabed are thought to persist by slow population turnover rates and extremely low energy requirements. External stimulations such as seafoor hydrocarbon seeps have been demonstrated to signifcantly boost microbial growth; however, the microbial community response has not been fully understood. Here we report a comparative metagenomic study of microbial response to natural hydrocarbon seeps in the Gulf of Mexico. Subsurface sediments (10–15 cm below seafoor) were collected from fve natural seep sites and two reference sites. The resulting metagenome sequencing datasets were analyzed with both gene-based and genome-based approaches. 16S rRNA gene-based analyses suggest that the seep samples are distinct from the references by both 16S rRNA fractional content and phylogeny, with the former dominated by ANME-1 archaea (~50% of total) and Desulfobacterales, and the latter dominated by the Deltaproteobacteria, Planctomycetes, and Chlorofexi phyla. Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) are present in both types of samples, with higher relative abundances in seep samples than the references. Genes for nitrogen fxation were predominantly found in the seep sites, whereas the reference sites showed a dominant signal for anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox). We recovered 49 metagenome-assembled genomes and assessed the microbial functional potentials in both types of samples. By this genome-based analysis, the seep samples were dominated by ANME-1 archaea and SRB, with the capacity for methane oxidation coupled to sulfate reduction, which is consistent with the 16S rRNA-gene based characterization.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep-Sea Shipwrecks Represent Island-Like Ecosystems for Marine Microbiomes
    The ISME Journal (2021) 15:2883–2891 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00978-y ARTICLE Deep-sea shipwrecks represent island-like ecosystems for marine microbiomes 1 1 1 1 1 Leila J. Hamdan ● Justyna J. Hampel ● Rachel D. Moseley ● Rachel. L. Mugge ● Anirban Ray ● 2 3 Jennifer L. Salerno ● Melanie Damour Received: 11 November 2020 / Revised: 19 March 2021 / Accepted: 6 April 2021 / Published online: 22 April 2021 © The Author(s) 2021. This article is published with open access Abstract Biogeography of macro- and micro-organisms in the deep sea is, in part, shaped by naturally occurring heterogeneous habitat features of geological and biological origin such as seeps, vents, seamounts, whale and wood-falls. Artificial features including shipwrecks and energy infrastructure shape the biogeographic patterns of macro-organisms; how they influence microorganisms is unclear. Shipwrecks may function as islands of biodiversity for microbiomes, creating a patchwork of habitats with influence radiating out into the seabed. Here we show microbiome richness and diversity increase as a function of proximity to the historic deep-sea shipwreck Anona in the Gulf of Mexico. Diversity and richness extinction plots provide 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: evidence of an island effect on microbiomes. A halo of core taxa on the seabed was observed up to 200 m away from the wreck indicative of the transition zone from shipwreck habitat to the surrounding environment. Transition zones around natural habitat features are often small in area compared to what was observed at Anona indicating shipwrecks may exert a large sphere of influence on seabed microbiomes. Historic shipwrecks are abundant, isolated habitats with global distribution, providing a means to explore contemporary processes shaping biogeography on the seafloor.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of the Deltaproteobacteria in Contaminated and Uncontaminated Stream Sediments and Identification of Potential Mercury Methylators
    Vol. 66: 271–282, 2012 AQUATIC MICROBIAL ECOLOGY Published online July 9 doi: 10.3354/ame01563 Aquat Microb Ecol Characterization of the Deltaproteobacteria in contaminated and uncontaminated stream sediments and identification of potential mercury methylators Jennifer J. Mosher1,3, Tatiana A. Vishnivetskaya1,4, Dwayne A. Elias1, Mircea Podar1, Scott C. Brooks2, Steven D. Brown1, Craig C. Brandt1, Anthony V. Palumbo1,* 1Biosciences Division, and 2Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA 3Present address: Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, Pennsylvania 19311, USA 4Present address: Center for Environmental Biotechnology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37998, USA ABSTRACT: Microbial communities were examined in surface stream sediments at 5 conta - minated sites and 1 control site near Oak Ridge, TN, USA, to identify bacteria that could be con- tributing to mercury (Hg) methylation. The phylogenetic composition of the sediment bacterial community was examined over 3 quarterly sampling periods (36 samples) using 16S rRNA gene pyro sequencing. Only 3064 sequences (0.85% of the total community) were identified as Delta - proteobacteria, the only group known to methylate Hg, using the Ribosomal Database Project classifier at the 99% confidence threshold. Constrained ordination techniques indicated statisti- cally significant positive linear correlations between Desulfobulbus spp., Desulfonema spp. and Desulfobacca spp. and methyl-Hg concentrations at the Hg-contaminated sites. In contrast, the distribution of organisms related to Byssovorax spp. was significantly correlated to inorganic car- bon, nitrate and uranium concentrations but not to Hg or methyl-Hg. Overall, the abundance and richness of Deltaproteobacteria sequences were higher in uncontaminated sediments, while the majority of the members present at the contaminated sites were either known potential metal- reducers/methylators or metal tolerant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Microscopic Methods for Identification of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria From
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Microscopic Methods for Identification of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria from Various Habitats Ivan Kushkevych 1,* , Blanka Hýžová 1, Monika Vítˇezová 1 and Simon K.-M. R. Rittmann 2,* 1 Department of Experimental Biology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic; [email protected] (B.H.); [email protected] (M.V.) 2 Archaea Physiology & Biotechnology Group, Department of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, Universität Wien, 1090 Wien, Austria * Correspondence: [email protected] (I.K.); [email protected] (S.K.-M.R.R.); Tel.: +420-549-495-315 (I.K.); +431-427-776-513 (S.K.-M.R.R.) Abstract: This paper is devoted to microscopic methods for the identification of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). In this context, it describes various habitats, morphology and techniques used for the detection and identification of this very heterogeneous group of anaerobic microorganisms. SRB are present in almost every habitat on Earth, including freshwater and marine water, soils, sediments or animals. In the oil, water and gas industries, they can cause considerable economic losses due to their hydrogen sulfide production; in periodontal lesions and the colon of humans, they can cause health complications. Although the role of these bacteria in inflammatory bowel diseases is not entirely known yet, their presence is increased in patients and produced hydrogen sulfide has a cytotoxic effect. For these reasons, methods for the detection of these microorganisms were described. Apart from selected molecular techniques, including metagenomics, fluorescence microscopy was one of the applied methods. Especially fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in various modifications Citation: Kushkevych, I.; Hýžová, B.; was described.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Materials
    Supplementary Materials Effects of antibiotics on the bacterial community，metabolic functions and antibiotic resistance genes in mariculture sediments during enrichment culturing Meng-Qi Ye,1 Guan-Jun Chen1,2 and Zong-Jun Du *1,2 1 Marine College, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, 264209, China. 2State Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong, 266237, China Authors for correspondence: Zong-Jun Du, Email: [email protected] Supplementary Tables Table S1 The information of antibiotics used in this study. Antibiotic name Class CAS NO. Inhibited pathway Mainly usage Zinc bacitracin Peptides 1405-89-6 Cell wall synthesis veterinary Ciprofloxacin Fluoroquinolone 85721-33-1 DNA synthesis veterinary and human Ampicillin sodium β-lactams 69-57-8 Cell wall synthesis veterinary and human Chloramphenicol Chloramphenicols 56-75-7 Protein synthesis veterinary and human Macrolides Tylosin 1401-69-0 Protein synthesis veterinary Tetracycline Tetracyclines 60-54-8 Aminoacyl-tRNA access veterinary and human Table S2 The dominant phyla (average abundance > 1.0%) in each treatment Treatment Dominant phyla Control （A） Proteobacteria (43.01%), Bacteroidetes(18.67%), Fusobacteria (12.91%), Firmicutes (11.74%), Chloroflexi (1.80%), Spirochaetae (1.64%), Planctomycetes (1.48%), Cloacimonetes (1.34%), Latescibacteria (1.03%) P Proteobacteria(50.24%), Bacteroidetes(19.79%), Fusobacteria (12.73%), Firmicutes (8.54%), Spirochaetae(2.92%), Synergistetes (1.98%), Q Proteobacteria (40.61%), Bacteroidetes (22.39%), Fusobacteria
    [Show full text]