Cargando…

Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples

Prokaryotic communities in pristine and oil‐contaminated desert soil, seawater, and hypersaline coastal soil were analyzed using culture‐dependent and culture‐independent approaches. The former technique was the dilution‐plating method. For the latter, total genomic DNA was extracted and the 16S rRN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al‐Mailem, Dina M., Kansour, Mayada K., Radwan, Samir S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28516483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.495
_version_ 1783270232095195136
author Al‐Mailem, Dina M.
Kansour, Mayada K.
Radwan, Samir S.
author_facet Al‐Mailem, Dina M.
Kansour, Mayada K.
Radwan, Samir S.
author_sort Al‐Mailem, Dina M.
collection PubMed
description Prokaryotic communities in pristine and oil‐contaminated desert soil, seawater, and hypersaline coastal soil were analyzed using culture‐dependent and culture‐independent approaches. The former technique was the dilution‐plating method. For the latter, total genomic DNA was extracted and the 16S rRNA genes were amplified using a universal bacterial primer pair and primer pairs specific for Actinobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, and Archaea. The amplicons were resolved using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and sequenced, and the sequences were compared to those in GenBank. The plating method offered the advantages of capturing the targeted hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms, counting them and providing cultures for further study. However, this technique could not capture more than a total of 15 different prokaryotic taxa. Those taxa belonged predominantly to the genera Alcanivorax, Pseudoxanthomonas, Bosea, Halomonas, and Marinobacter. The individual isolates in culture consumed between 19 and 50% of the available crude oil in 10 days. Although the culture‐independent approach revealed much more microbial diversity, it was not problem‐free. The subdivision primers exhibited satisfactory specificity, but they failed to capture all the available taxa. The universal bacterial primer pair ignored Actinobacteria altogether, although the primer pair specific for Actinobacteria captured many of them, for example, the genera Geodermatophilus, Streptomyces, Mycobacterium, Pontimonas, Rhodococcus, Blastococcus, Kocuria, and many others. Because most researchers worldwide use universal primers for PCR, this finding should be considered critically to avoid misleading interpretations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5635167
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56351672017-10-18 Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples Al‐Mailem, Dina M. Kansour, Mayada K. Radwan, Samir S. Microbiologyopen Original Research Prokaryotic communities in pristine and oil‐contaminated desert soil, seawater, and hypersaline coastal soil were analyzed using culture‐dependent and culture‐independent approaches. The former technique was the dilution‐plating method. For the latter, total genomic DNA was extracted and the 16S rRNA genes were amplified using a universal bacterial primer pair and primer pairs specific for Actinobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, and Archaea. The amplicons were resolved using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and sequenced, and the sequences were compared to those in GenBank. The plating method offered the advantages of capturing the targeted hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms, counting them and providing cultures for further study. However, this technique could not capture more than a total of 15 different prokaryotic taxa. Those taxa belonged predominantly to the genera Alcanivorax, Pseudoxanthomonas, Bosea, Halomonas, and Marinobacter. The individual isolates in culture consumed between 19 and 50% of the available crude oil in 10 days. Although the culture‐independent approach revealed much more microbial diversity, it was not problem‐free. The subdivision primers exhibited satisfactory specificity, but they failed to capture all the available taxa. The universal bacterial primer pair ignored Actinobacteria altogether, although the primer pair specific for Actinobacteria captured many of them, for example, the genera Geodermatophilus, Streptomyces, Mycobacterium, Pontimonas, Rhodococcus, Blastococcus, Kocuria, and many others. Because most researchers worldwide use universal primers for PCR, this finding should be considered critically to avoid misleading interpretations. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5635167/ /pubmed/28516483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.495 Text en © 2017 The Authors. MicrobiologyOpen published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Al‐Mailem, Dina M.
Kansour, Mayada K.
Radwan, Samir S.
Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples
title Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples
title_full Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples
title_fullStr Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples
title_full_unstemmed Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples
title_short Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples
title_sort capabilities and limitations of dgge for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28516483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.495
work_keys_str_mv AT almailemdinam capabilitiesandlimitationsofdggefortheanalysisofhydrocarbonoclasticprokaryoticcommunitiesdirectlyinenvironmentalsamples
AT kansourmayadak capabilitiesandlimitationsofdggefortheanalysisofhydrocarbonoclasticprokaryoticcommunitiesdirectlyinenvironmentalsamples
AT radwansamirs capabilitiesandlimitationsofdggefortheanalysisofhydrocarbonoclasticprokaryoticcommunitiesdirectlyinenvironmentalsamples