| Literature DB >> 30577417 |
Yong Li1, Jianqiang Zhang2, Zhiliang Gong3, Wenlai Xu4, Zishen Mou5.
Abstract
Quinoprotein class="Gene">glucose dehydrogenase (Entities:
Keywords: Sancha Lake; diversity; environmental factors; eutrophication; gcd gene
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30577417 PMCID: PMC6339069 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16010001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Sampling sites at Sancha Lake.
Description of sampling sites at Sancha Lake.
| Sample Site | Geographical Coordinates | Depth (m) | Hydrophyte | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | 30°14′52″ N | 13 | Large quantity | Concentrated area of fenced breeding |
| 104°16′15″ E | ||||
| L2 | 30°14′28″ N | 4 | Large quantity | Tail water area of the reservoir |
| 104°15′32″ E | ||||
| L3 | 30°17′25″ N | 26 | Small quantity | Relatively concentrated area of fenced breeding |
| 104°16′31″ E | ||||
| L4 | 30°18′15″ N | 17 | Large quantity | Area with intense human activity |
| 104°14′31″ E | ||||
| L5 | 30°18′18″ N | 30 | Small quantity | Dense area of cage breeding |
| 104°16′2″ E | ||||
| L6 | 30°19′15″ N | 19 | Moderate quantity | Main water entry area of the lake |
| 104°15′14″ E |
Figure 2Claw-like Peterson dredge.
Physicochemical properties of the sediments and overlying water in spring and autumn.
| Season | Location | pH | DO (mg·L−1) | T (°C) | DTP (mg·L−1) | TOC (mg·g−1) | TN (mg·g−1) | NH3-N (mg·g−1) | TP (mg·g−1) | OP | IP (mg·g−1) | HCl–P (mg·g−1) | NaOH–P (mg·g−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spring | L1 | 7.38 ± 0.11 | 6.4 ± 1.0 | 13.0 ± 0.3 | 0.088 ± 0.025 | 48.1 ± 5.0 | 6.46 ± 0.46 | 0.387 ± 0.030 | 1.036 ± 0.100 | 0.242 ± 0.042 | 0.790 ± 0.090 | 0.590 ± 0.01 | 0.148 ± 0.008 |
| L2 | 7.52 ± 0.13 | 6.4 ± 0.9 | 12.9 ± 0.1 | 0.092 ± 0.040 | 36.9 ± 4.0 | 4.30 ± 0.30 | 0.057 ± 0.007 | 0.715 ± 0.015 | 0.229 ± 0.090 | 0.617 ± 0.017 | 0.550 ± 0.010 | 0.047 ± 0.010 | |
| L3 | 7.52 ± 0.10 | 5.8 ± 0.2 | 12.6 ± 0.3 | 0.035 ± 0.005 | 76.6 ± 8.0 | 10.15 ± 1.00 | 0.017 ± 0.007 | 3.069 ± 0.092 | 0.562 ± 0.062 | 2.687 ± 0.087 | 2.248 ± 0.100 | 0.367 ± 0.060 | |
| L4 | 7.46 ± 0.10 | 6.7 ± 1.1 | 13.2 ± 0.2 | 0.069 ± 0.002 | 55.0 ± 6.0 | 4.87 ± 0.87 | 0.021 ± 0.000 | 1.120 ± 0.120 | 0.189 ± 0.046 | 0.824 ± 0.004 | 0.786 ± 0.050 | 0.099 ± 0.009 | |
| L5 | 7.45 ± 0.09 | 5.1 ± 0.5 | 12.6 ± 0.2 | 0.033 ± 0.003 | 55.6 ± 5.0 | 6.57 ± 0.50 | 0.067 ± 0.007 | 1.376 ± 0.109 | 0.311 ± 0.011 | 1.162 ± 0.10 | 0.556 ± 0.010 | 0.340 ± 0.020 | |
| L6 | 7.67 ± 0.21 | 9.0 ± 1.0 | 12.7 ± 0.3 | 0.065 ± 0.005 | 25.4 ± 3.0 | 1.66 ± 0.06 | 0.096 ± 0.006 | 0.696 ± 0.100 | 0.099 ± 0.009 | 0.481 ± 0.090 | 0.406 ± 0.006 | 0.077 ± 0.007 | |
| Autumn | L1 | 7.54 ± 0.10 | 5.6 ± 0.1 | 15.4 ± 0.4 | 0.057 ± 0.007 | 47.5 ± 2.0 | 4.49 ± 0.49 | 0.244 ± 0.034 | 2.874 ± 0.074 | 0.317 ± 0.017 | 2.603 ± 0.060 | 1.088 ± 0.088 | 0.172 ± 0.002 |
| L2 | 6.89 ± 0.19 | 5.5 ± 0.1 | 17.2 ± 1.0 | 0.051 ± 0.002 | 34.8 ± 1.8 | 3.18 ± 0.28 | 0.035 ± 0.005 | 1.153 ± 0.053 | 0.444 ± 0.021 | 0.782 ± 0.030 | 0.450 ± 0.050 | 0.395 ± 0.005 | |
| L3 | 7.11 ± 0.10 | 4.1 ± 0.1 | 14.6 ± 0.6 | 0.012 ± 0.001 | 83.2 ± 3.2 | 10.77 ± 1.74 | 0.539 ± 0.039 | 5.005 ± 0.202 | 0.609 ± 0.041 | 3.882 ± 0.080 | 3.517 ± 0.017 | 1.007 ± 0.007 | |
| L4 | 7.16 ± 0.06 | 5.5 ± 0.2 | 16.3 ± 0.9 | 0.055 ± 0.005 | 54.2 ± 2.4 | 3.99 ± 0.41 | 0.141 ± 0.004 | 2.661 ± 0.060 | 0.295 ± 0.010 | 1.897 ± 0.070 | 1.949 ± 0.049 | 0.222 ± 0.022 | |
| L5 | 7.02 ± 0.02 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 14.1 ± 0.1 | 0.015 ± 0.005 | 47.8 ± 2.0 | 5.25 ± 0.79 | 0.071 ± 0.001 | 1.454 ± 0.054 | 0.369 ± 0.009 | 1.051 ± 0.051 | 0.554 ± 0.054 | 0.611 ± 0.011 | |
| L6 | 7.18 ± 0.18 | 5.9 ± 0.3 | 16.5 ± 0.5 | 0.025 ± 0.005 | 32.9 ± 1.7 | 2.28 ± 0.18 | 0.265 ± 0.006 | 0.629 ± 0.029 | 0.167 ± 0.007 | 0.444 ± 0.024 | 0.343 ± 0.033 | 0.104 ± 0.004 |
Note: pH, T, DO, and DTP were measured in overlying water of sediments; TOC, TN, NH3–N, TP, IP, OP, HCl–P, and NaOH–P were measured in sediments. Data are mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 3Rarefaction curves of samples L1–L6 in the spring and autumn.
The gcd-harboring bacteria richness and diversity in sediments in Sancha Lake.
| Season | Sampling Site | Reads | Chao1 | Shannon | Coverage | OTUs | No. of Phyla | No. of Classes | No. of Orders | No. of Families | No. of Genera |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| spring | L1 | 32,585 ± 150 | 234.55 ± 33.05 | 3.365 ± 0.040 | 0.9993 ± 0.0004 | 226 ± 6 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 19 | 22 |
| L2 | 23,251 ± 120 | 156.18 ± 21.04 | 2.777 ± 0.067 | 0.9985 ± 0.0012 | 150 ± 4 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 23 | |
| L3 | 12,834 ± 60 | 98.60 ± 19.04 | 1.539 ± 0.030 | 0.9986 ± 0.0007 | 85 ± 2 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 16 | |
| L4 | 41,828 ± 200 | 185.27 ± 29.04 | 2.622 ± 0.064 | 0.9993 ± 0.0005 | 158 ± 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 17 | |
| L5 | 12,151 ± 60 | 140.69 ± 18.09 | 3.167 ± 0.071 | 0.9983 ± 0.0002 | 130 ± 3 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 13 | |
| L6 | 13,357 ± 65 | 322.14 ± 36.64 | 3.397 ± 0.075 | 0.9958 ± 0.0017 | 291 ± 7 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 17 | 32 | |
| autumn | L1 | 95,695 ± 50 | 163.05 ± 23.04 | 2.943 ± 0.040 | 0.9978 ± 0.0014 | 154 ± 4 | 5 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 22 |
| L2 | 10,880 ± 54 | 143.96 ± 20.05 | 1.259 ± 0.014 | 0.9983 ± 0.0004 | 121 ± 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 15 | |
| L3 | 3199 ± 10 | 43.00 ± 1.00 | 1.307 ± 0.016 | 0.9974 ± 0.0000 | 29 ± 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 10 | |
| L4 | 10,852 ± 54 | 80.20 ± 3.04 | 1.939 ± 0.029 | 0.9984 ± 0.0006 | 62 ± 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 10 | |
| L5 | 30,857 ± 150 | 139.38 ± 17.04 | 2.432 ± 0.039 | 0.9994 ± 0.0001 | 118 ± 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 12 | |
| L6 | 18,415 ± 92 | 157.53 ± 22.04 | 2.273 ± 0.027 | 0.9992 ± 0.0005 | 152 ± 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 23 |
Note: Data are mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 4Relative abundance and composition of gcd-harboring bacterial phyla detected in the sediments of Sancha Lake.
Figure 5Relative abundance and composition of gcd-harboring bacterial genera detected in the sediments of Sancha Lake.
Figure 6The heatmap diagram of gcd-harboring bacterial communities in the sediments of Sancha Lake.
Figure 7The UPGMA analysis of gcd-harboring bacterial communities in the sediments of Sancha Lake.
Figure 8The PCoA analysis of gcd-harboring bacterial communities in the sediments of Sancha Lake.
Coefficients of correlation between diversities and abundances of gcd genes in the sediments and physicochemical properties.
| Environmental Factor | PH | DO | T | TN | TOC | TP | HCl-P | NaOH-P | DTP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTUs | 0.422 a/0.172 b | 0.346/0.271 | 0.239/0.454 | –0.577/0.05 * | –0.631/0.028 * | –0.698/0.012 * | –0.687/0.014 * | –0.624/0.03 * | 0.915/0.000 ** |
| Chao1 | 0.043/0.894 | 0.391/0.211 | –0.063/0.846 | –0.604/0.037 * | –0.6/0.039 * | –0.619/0.032 * | –0.653/0.021 * | –0.32/0.311 | 0.643/0.024 * |
| Shannon | 479/0.115 | 0.251/0.432 | 0.278/0.382 | –0.574/0.051 | –0.619/0.032 * | –702/0.011 * | –0.672/0.017 * | –0.635/0.26 | 0.921/0.000 ** |
| No. of filtered reads | 0.371/0.236 | 0.907/0.002 ** | 0.12/0.711 | –0.093/0.773 | –0.191/0.553 | –0.464/0.129 | –0.457/0.135 | –514/0.088 | 0.602/0.039 * |
aR2; bp-value; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 9The CCA analysis of gcd-harboring bacterial communities and physicochemical factors of the sediments in Sancha Lake.