| Literature DB >> 24177592 |
Farhana Sharmin1, Steve Wakelin, Flavia Huygens, Megan Hargreaves.
Abstract
Sugar cane processing sites are characterised by high sugar/hemicellulose levels, available moisture and warm conditions, and are relatively unexplored unique microbial environments. The PhyloChip microarray was used to investigate bacterial diversity and community composition in three Australian sugar cane processing plants. These ecosystems were highly complex and dominated by four main Phyla, Firmicutes (the most dominant), followed by Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Chloroflexi. Significant variation (p < 0.05) in community structure occurred between samples collected from 'floor dump sediment', 'cooling tower water', and 'bagasse leachate'. Many bacterial Classes contributed to these differences, however most were of low numerical abundance. Separation in community composition was also linked to Classes of Firmicutes, particularly Bacillales, Lactobacillales and Clostridiales, whose dominance is likely to be linked to their physiology as 'lactic acid bacteria', capable of fermenting the sugars present. This process may help displace other bacterial taxa, providing a competitive advantage for Firmicutes bacteria.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24177592 PMCID: PMC3814580 DOI: 10.1038/srep03107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Richness (Margalefs index; d) of bacterial communities present at sugar-cane processing sites
| Treatment | BGL | FDS | CTW | FDS | CTW | FDS | CTW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Mackay | Maryborough | Prosperine | ||||
| Phylum | 1.91 | 1.88 | 1.85 | 1.88 | 1.82 | 1.86 | 1.85 |
| Class | 3.81 | 3.77 | 3.70 | 3.75 | 3.64 | 3.72 | 3.70 |
| Order | 7.28 | 7.19 | 7.07 | 7.17 | 6.96 | 7.10 | 7.06 |
| Family | 13.47 | 13.29 | 13.07 | 13.25 | 12.86 | 13.13 | 13.06 |
| Sub-family | 16.41 | 16.20 | 15.93 | 16.15 | 15.68 | 16.01 | 15.92 |
| OTU | 78.94 | 77.94 | 76.64 | 77.69 | 75.41 | 76.99 | 76.59 |
Evenness (Pielous index; J′) of bacterial communities isolated from sugar-cane processing sites
| Treatment | BGL | FDS | CTW | FDS | CTW | FDS | CTW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Mackay | Maryborough | Prosperine | ||||
| Phylum | 0.464 | 0.519 | 0.474 | 0.502 | 0.486 | 0.475 | 0.526 |
| Class | 0.658 | 0.672 | 0.677 | 0.679 | 0.680 | 0.678 | 0.699 |
| Order | 0.814 | 0.764 | 0.821 | 0.793 | 0.803 | 0.828 | 0.785 |
| Family | 0.867 | 0.838 | 0.867 | 0.856 | 0.855 | 0.873 | 0.854 |
| Sub-family | 0.856 | 0.828 | 0.858 | 0.846 | 0.845 | 0.865 | 0.844 |
| OTU | 0.986 | 0.959 | 0.990 | 0.976 | 0.981 | 0.967 | 0.962 |
Figure 1Abundance of bacterial Phyla in samples of bagasse, floor dump sediment (FDS) and cooling tower water (CTW) from sugar-cane processing sites.
Figure 2Abundance of bacterial Classes in samples of bagasse, floor dump sediment (FDS) and cooling tower water (CTW) from sugar-cane processing sites.
Summary CAP analysis results testing for effects of treatment type (bagasse, FDS, and CTW) or location (Mackay, Maryborough, Prosperine) on bacterial community composition
| Treatment | Location | |
|---|---|---|
| Phyla | 0.019 | 0.783 |
| Class | 0.019 | 0.784 |
| Order | 0.095 | 0.816 |
| Family | 0.168 | 0.674 |
| Sub-family | 0.168 | 0.637 |
| OTU | 0.133 | 0.488 |
Figure 3Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling ordination (NMDS) plot showing similarity in community composition between samples.
On the plot, increasing distance between sample points equates to more dissimilarity in community composition. Data is Class-level taxa and has been log(x + 1) transformed. Similarity is based on Gower's similarity method.
Figure 4Taxonomy of selected genera of the Phylum Firmicutes (adapted from Whitman, 2009).
SIMPER analysis identifying which bacterial Classes contribute most strongly towards differences in FDS and CTW community compositions. (UC) denotes an unclassified class within the Phyla identified. Average abundance data is log-transformed, average PhyloChip probe intensity data (standardised over samples). Average dissimilarity is the contribution of each taxa towards dissimilarity between the two treatment groups (FDS and CTW). Dissimilarity is the average contribution/standard deviation of the contribution over groups (i.e. consistency)
| Average abundance2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Class1 | FDS | CTW | Average Dissimilarity3 | Dissimilarity/standard deviation4 | Contrib-ution (%) | Cumulative contribution (%) |
| NC10-1 (UC) | 0.59 | 0.66 | 0.04 | 1.87 | 2.84 | 2.84 |
| Ellin6075/11-25 | 0.69 | 0.71 | 0.03 | 2.00 | 2.07 | 4.91 |
| Acetobacterales | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.03 | 1.50 | 2.01 | 6.92 |
| MND1 clone group | 0.75 | 0.79 | 0.03 | 1.59 | 2.01 | 8.93 |
| Oscillatoriales | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.03 | 1.14 | 1.97 | 10.90 |
| Methylophilales | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.02 | 2.18 | 1.75 | 12.66 |
| Hydrogenophilales | 0.7 | 0.72 | 0.02 | 1.37 | 1.74 | 14.40 |
| Bacillales | 1.01 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 1.48 | 1.65 | 16.04 |
| Lactobacillales | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.02 | 1.50 | 1.6 | 17.64 |
| TM7 (UC) | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.02 | 1.66 | 1.53 | 19.17 |
| Xanthomonadales | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.02 | 1.17 | 1.5 | 20.67 |
| Burkholderiales | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.02 | 1.73 | 1.47 | 22.14 |
| gut clone group | 0.8 | 0.78 | 0.02 | 1.92 | 1.38 | 23.52 |
| Proteobacteria (UC) | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.02 | 1.73 | 1.28 | 24.80 |
| Chloroflexi-4 (UC) | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.02 | 1.30 | 1.22 | 26.03 |
| Nitrosomonadales | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.02 | 1.71 | 1.19 | 27.22 |
| Clostridiales | 1.03 | 1.02 | 0.02 | 2.14 | 1.18 | 28.40 |
| Plectonema | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.01 | 1.07 | 1.14 | 29.53 |