Microbial DNA barcoding

Last updated
Bildschirmfoto 2019-03-28 um 17.23.07.png

Microbial DNA barcoding is the use of DNA metabarcoding to characterize a mixture of microorganisms. DNA metabarcoding is a method of DNA barcoding that uses universal genetic markers to identify DNA of a mixture of organisms. [1]

Contents

History

Part of a series on
DNA barcoding
DNA Barcoding.png
 
DNA barcoding • Metabarcoding
 
By taxa
Other

Using metabarcoding to assess microbial communities has a long history. Back in 1972, Carl Woese, Mitchell Sogin and Stephen Sogin first tried to detect several families within bacteria using the 5S rRNA gene. [2] Only a few years later, a new tree of life with three domains was proposed by again Woese and colleagues, who were the first to use the small subunit of the ribosomal RNA (SSU rRNA) gene to distinguish between bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. [3] Out of this approach, the SSU rRNA gene made its way to be the most frequently used genetic marker for both prokaryotes (16S rRNA) and eukaryotes (18S rRNA). The tedious process of cloning those DNA fragments for sequencing got fastened up by the steady improvement of sequencing technologies. With the development of HTS (High-Throughput-Sequencing) in the early 2000s and the ability to deal with this massive data using modern bioinformatics and cluster algorithms, investigating microbial life got much easier.

Genetic markers

Genetic diversity is varying from species to species. Therefore, it is possible to identify distinct species by the recovery of a short DNA sequence from a standard part of the genome. This short sequence is defined as barcode sequence. Requirements for a specific part of the genome to serve as barcode should be a high variation between two different species, but not much differences in the gene between two individuals of the same species to make differentiating individual species easier. [4] [5] For both bacteria and archaea the 16S rRNA/rDNA gene is used. It is a common housekeeping gene in all prokaryotic organisms and therefore is used as a standard barcode to assess prokaryotic diversity. For protists, the corresponding 18S rRNA/rDNA gene is used. [6] To distinguish different species of fungi, the ITS (Internal Transcribed Spacer) region of the ribosomal cistron is used. [7]

Advantages

The existing diversity of the microbial world is not unraveled completely yet, although we know that it is mainly composed by bacteria, fungi and unicellular eukaryotes. [4] Taxonomic identification of microbial eukaryotes requires exceedingly skillful expertise and is often difficult due to small sizes of the organisms, fragmented individuals, hidden diversity and cryptic species. [8] [9] Further, prokaryotes can simply not be taxonomically assigned using traditional methods like microscopy, because they are too small and morphologically indistinguishable. Therefore, via the use of DNA metabarcoding, it is possible to identify organisms without taxonomic expertise by matching short High Throughput Sequences (HTS)-derived gene fragments to a reference sequence database, e.g. NCBI. [10] These mentioned qualities make DNA barcoding a cost-effective, reliable and less time-consuming method, compared to the traditional ones, to meet the increasing need for large-scale environmental assessments.

Applications

A lot of studies followed the first usage of Woese et al., and are now covering a variety of applications. Not only in biological or ecological research metabarcoding is used. Also in medicine and human biology bacterial barcodes are used, e.g. to investigate the microbiome and bacterial colonization of the human gut in normal and obese twins [11] or comparison studies of newborn, child and adult gut bacteria composition. [12] Additionally, barcoding plays a major role in biomonitoring of e.g. rivers and streams [13] and grassland restoration. [14] Conservation parasitology, environmental parasitology and paleoparasitology rely on barcoding as a useful tool in disease investigating and management, too. [15]

Cyanobacteria

Cyanobacteria are a group of photosynthetic prokaryotes. Similar as in other prokaryotes, taxonomy of cyanobacteria using DNA sequences is mostly based on similarity within the 16S ribosomal gene. [16] Thus, the most common barcode used for identification of cyanobacteria is 16S rDNA marker. While it is difficult to define species within prokaryotic organisms, 16S marker can be used for determining individual operational taxonomic units (OTUs). In some cases, these OTUs can also be linked to traditionally defined species and can therefore be considered a reliable representation of the evolutionary relationships. [17]

Cyanobacteria from genus Dolichospermum, as seen under a microscope. Dolichospermum sp..jpg
Cyanobacteria from genus Dolichospermum, as seen under a microscope.

However, when analyzing a taxonomic structure or biodiversity of a whole cyanobacterial community (see DNA metabarcoding), it is more informative to use markers specific for cyanobacteria. Universal 16S bacterial primers have been used successfully to isolate cyanobacterial rDNA from environmental samples, but they also recover many bacterial sequences. [18] [19] The use of cyanobacteria-specific [20] or phyto-specific 16S markers is commonly used for focusing on cyanobacteria only. [21] A few sets of such primers have been tested for barcoding or metabarcoding of environmental samples and gave good results, screening out majority of non-photosynthetic or non-cyanobacterial organisms. [22] [21] [23] [24]

Number of sequenced cyanobacterial genomes available in databases is increasing. [25] Besides 16S marker, phylogenetic studies could therefore include also more variable sequences, such as sequences of protein-coding genes (gyrB, rpoC, rpoD, [26] rbcL, hetR, [27] psbA, [28] [29] rnpB, [30] nifH, [31] nifD [32] ), internal transcribed spacer of ribosomal RNA genes (16S-23S rRNA-ITS) [33] [25] or phycocyanin intergenic spacer (PC-IGS). [33] However, nifD and nifH can only be used for identification of nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterial strains.

DNA barcoding of cyanobacteria can be applied in various ecological, evolutionary and taxonomical studies. Some examples include assessment of cyanobacterial diversity and community structure, [34] identification of harmful cyanobacteria in ecologically and economically important waterbodies [35] and assessment of cyanobacterial symbionts in marine invertebrates. [24] It has a potential to serve as a part of routine monitoring programs for occurrence of cyanobacteria, as well as early detection of potentially toxic species in waterbodies. This might help us detect harmful species before they start to form blooms and thus improve our water management strategies. Species identification based on environmental DNA could be particularly useful for cyanobacteria, as traditional identification using microscopy is challenging. Their morphological characteristics which are the basis for species delimitation vary in different growth conditions. [20] [36] Identification under microscope is also time-consuming and therefore relatively costly. Molecular methods can detect much lower concentration of cyanobacterial cells in the sample than traditional identification methods.

Reference databases

The reference database is a collection of DNA sequences, which are assigned to either a species or a function. It can be used to link molecular obtained sequences of an organism to pre-existing taxonomy. General databases like the NCBI platform include all kind of sequences, either whole genomes or specific marker genes of all organisms. There are also different platforms where only sequences from a distinct group of organisms are stored, e.g. UNITE database [37] exclusively for fungi sequences or the PR2 database solely for protist ribosomal sequences. [38] Some databases are curated, which allows a taxonomic assignment with higher accuracy than using uncurated databases as a reference.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nanoarchaeota</span> Phylum of archaea

Nanoarchaeota is a proposed phylum in the domain Archaea that currently has only one representative, Nanoarchaeum equitans, which was discovered in a submarine hydrothermal vent and first described in 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thermoproteota</span> Phylum of archaea

The Thermoproteota are prokaryotes that have been classified as a phylum of the domain Archaea. Initially, the Thermoproteota were thought to be sulfur-dependent extremophiles but recent studies have identified characteristic Thermoproteota environmental rRNA indicating the organisms may be the most abundant archaea in the marine environment. Originally, they were separated from the other archaea based on rRNA sequences; other physiological features, such as lack of histones, have supported this division, although some crenarchaea were found to have histones. Until 2005 all cultured Thermoproteota had been thermophilic or hyperthermophilic organisms, some of which have the ability to grow at up to 113 °C. These organisms stain Gram negative and are morphologically diverse, having rod, cocci, filamentous and oddly-shaped cells. Recent evidence shows that some members of the Thermoproteota are methanogens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Korarchaeota</span> Proposed phylum within the Archaea

The Korarchaeota is a proposed phylum within the Archaea. The name is derived from the Greek noun koros or kore, meaning young man or young woman, and the Greek adjective archaios which means ancient. They are also known as Xenarchaeota. The name is equivalent to Candidatus Korarchaeota, and they go by the name Xenarchaeota or Xenarchaea as well.

In molecular biology, a hybridization probe (HP) is a fragment of DNA or RNA, usually 15–10000 nucleotides long, which can be radioactively or fluorescently labeled. HPs can be used to detect the presence of nucleotide sequences in analyzed RNA or DNA that are complementary to the sequence in the probe. The labeled probe is first denatured into single stranded DNA (ssDNA) and then hybridized to the target ssDNA or RNA immobilized on a membrane or in situ.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metagenomics</span> Study of genes found in the environment

Metagenomics is the study of genetic material recovered directly from environmental or clinical samples by a method called sequencing. The broad field may also be referred to as environmental genomics, ecogenomics, community genomics or microbiomics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George E. Fox</span> American astrobiologist

George Edward Fox is an astrobiologist, a Professor Emeritus and researcher at the University of Houston. He is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering and the International Astrobiology Society. Fox received his B.A. degree in 1967, and completed his Ph.D. degree in 1974; both in chemical engineering at Syracuse University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">16S ribosomal RNA</span> RNA component

16S ribosomal RNA is the RNA component of the 30S subunit of a prokaryotic ribosome. It binds to the Shine-Dalgarno sequence and provides most of the SSU structure.

Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 is a strain of unicellular, freshwater cyanobacteria. Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 is capable of both phototrophic growth by oxygenic photosynthesis during light periods and heterotrophic growth by glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation during dark periods. Gene expression is regulated by a circadian clock and the organism can effectively anticipate transitions between the light and dark phases.

An operational taxonomic unit (OTU) is an operational definition used to classify groups of closely related individuals. The term was originally introduced in 1963 by Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath in the context of numerical taxonomy, where an "operational taxonomic unit" is simply the group of organisms currently being studied. Numerical taxonomy is a method in biological systematics that involves using numerical techniques to classify taxonomic units based on the states of their characteristics. In this sense, an OTU is a pragmatic definition to group individuals by similarity, equivalent to but not necessarily in line with classical Linnaean taxonomy or modern evolutionary taxonomy.

In molecular biology, and more importantly high-throughput DNA sequencing, a chimera is a single DNA sequence originating when multiple transcripts or DNA sequences get joined. Chimeras can be considered artifacts and be filtered out from the data during processing to prevent spurious inferences of biological variation. However, chimeras should not be confused with chimeric reads, who are generally used by structural variant callers to detect structural variation events and are not always an indication of the presence of a chimeric transcript or gene.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DNA barcoding</span> Method of species identification using a short section of DNA

DNA barcoding is a method of species identification using a short section of DNA from a specific gene or genes. The premise of DNA barcoding is that by comparison with a reference library of such DNA sections, an individual sequence can be used to uniquely identify an organism to species, just as a supermarket scanner uses the familiar black stripes of the UPC barcode to identify an item in its stock against its reference database. These "barcodes" are sometimes used in an effort to identify unknown species or parts of an organism, simply to catalog as many taxa as possible, or to compare with traditional taxonomy in an effort to determine species boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bacterial taxonomy</span> Rank based classification of bacteria

Bacterial taxonomy is subfield of taxonomy devoted to the classification of bacteria specimens into taxonomic ranks.

Community fingerprinting is a set of molecular biology techniques that can be used to quickly profile the diversity of a microbial community. Rather than directly identifying or counting individual cells in an environmental sample, these techniques show how many variants of a gene are present. In general, it is assumed that each different gene variant represents a different type of microbe. Community fingerprinting is used by microbiologists studying a variety of microbial systems to measure biodiversity or track changes in community structure over time. The method analyzes environmental samples by assaying genomic DNA. This approach offers an alternative to microbial culturing, which is important because most microbes cannot be cultured in the laboratory. Community fingerprinting does not result in identification of individual microbe species; instead, it presents an overall picture of a microbial community. These methods are now largely being replaced by high throughput sequencing, such as targeted microbiome analysis and metagenomics.

Microbial phylogenetics is the study of the manner in which various groups of microorganisms are genetically related. This helps to trace their evolution. To study these relationships biologists rely on comparative genomics, as physiology and comparative anatomy are not possible methods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mitchell Sogin</span> American microbiologist

Mitchell Sogin is an American microbiologist. He is a distinguished senior scientist at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. His research investigates the evolution and diversity of single-celled organisms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aquatic macroinvertebrate DNA barcoding</span>

DNA barcoding is an alternative method to the traditional morphological taxonomic classification, and has frequently been used to identify species of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Many are crucial indicator organisms in the bioassessment of freshwater and marine ecosystems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Algae DNA barcoding</span> Technique used for species identification and phylogenetic studies

DNA barcoding of algae is commonly used for species identification and phylogenetic studies. Algae form a phylogenetically heterogeneous group, meaning that the application of a single universal barcode/marker for species delimitation is unfeasible, thus different markers/barcodes are applied for this aim in different algal groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fish DNA barcoding</span>

DNA barcoding methods for fish are used to identify groups of fish based on DNA sequences within selected regions of a genome. These methods can be used to study fish, as genetic material, in the form of environmental DNA (eDNA) or cells, is freely diffused in the water. This allows researchers to identify which species are present in a body of water by collecting a water sample, extracting DNA from the sample and isolating DNA sequences that are specific for the species of interest. Barcoding methods can also be used for biomonitoring and food safety validation, animal diet assessment, assessment of food webs and species distribution, and for detection of invasive species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fungal DNA barcoding</span> Identification of fungal species thanks to specific DNA sequences

Fungal DNA barcoding is the process of identifying species of the biological kingdom Fungi through the amplification and sequencing of specific DNA sequences and their comparison with sequences deposited in a DNA barcode database such as the ISHAM reference database, or the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD). In this attempt, DNA barcoding relies on universal genes that are ideally present in all fungi with the same degree of sequence variation. The interspecific variation, i.e., the variation between species, in the chosen DNA barcode gene should exceed the intraspecific (within-species) variation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metabarcoding</span> Genetic technique for identifying organisms in mixed samples

Metabarcoding is the barcoding of DNA/RNA in a manner that allows for the simultaneous identification of many taxa within the same sample. The main difference between barcoding and metabarcoding is that metabarcoding does not focus on one specific organism, but instead aims to determine species composition within a sample.

References

  1. ↑ Elbrecht V, Leese F (8 July 2015). "Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass--Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol". PLOS ONE. 10 (7): e0130324. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1030324E. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130324 . PMC   4496048 . PMID   26154168.
  2. ↑ Sogin SJ, Sogin ML, Woese CR (June 1972). "Phylogenetic measurement in procaryotes by primary structural characterization". Journal of Molecular Evolution. 1 (2): 173–84. Bibcode:1972JMolE...1..173S. doi:10.1007/BF01659163. PMID   24173440. S2CID   3666143.
  3. ↑ Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML (June 1990). "Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 87 (12): 4576–9. Bibcode:1990PNAS...87.4576W. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576 . PMC   54159 . PMID   2112744.
  4. 1 2 Chakraborty C, Doss CG, Patra BC, Bandyopadhyay S (April 2014). "DNA barcoding to map the microbial communities: current advances and future directions". Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 98 (8): 3425–36. doi:10.1007/s00253-014-5550-9. PMID   24522727. S2CID   17591196.
  5. ↑ Hajibabaei M, Singer GA, Clare EL, Hebert PD (June 2007). "Design and applicability of DNA arrays and DNA barcodes in biodiversity monitoring". BMC Biology. 5 (1): 24. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-5-24 . PMC   1906742 . PMID   17567898.
  6. ↑ Gardham S, Hose GC, Stephenson S, Chariton AA (2014). "DNA Metabarcoding Meets Experimental Ecotoxicology". Big Data in Ecology. Advances in Ecological Research. Vol. 51. pp. 79–104. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-099970-8.00007-5. ISBN   978-0-08-099970-8.
  7. ↑ Creer S, Deiner K, Frey S, Porazinska D, Taberlet P, Thomas WK, Potter C, Bik HM (September 2016). "The ecologist's field guide to sequence-based identification of biodiversity" (PDF). Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 7 (9): 1008–1018. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12574 .
  8. ↑ Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sodhi NS, Ng PK, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram KK, Das I (March 2007). "Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation" (PDF). Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 22 (3): 148–55. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.004. PMID   17129636.
  9. ↑ Sáez AG, Lozano E (January 2005). "Body doubles". Nature. 433 (7022): 111. Bibcode:2005Natur.433..111S. doi: 10.1038/433111a . PMID   15650721. S2CID   4413395.
  10. ↑ Keeley N, Wood SA, Pochon X (February 2018). "Development and preliminary validation of a multi-trophic metabarcoding biotic index for monitoring benthic organic enrichment". Ecological Indicators. 85: 1044–1057. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.014.
  11. ↑ Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL, Duncan A, Ley RE, Sogin ML, Jones WJ, Roe BA, Affourtit JP, Egholm M, Henrissat B, Heath AC, Knight R, Gordon JI (January 2009). "A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins". Nature. 457 (7228): 480–4. Bibcode:2009Natur.457..480T. doi:10.1038/nature07540. PMC   2677729 . PMID   19043404.
  12. ↑ Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, Dominguez-Bello MG, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Baldassano RN, Anokhin AP, Heath AC, Warner B, Reeder J, Kuczynski J, Caporaso JG, Lozupone CA, Lauber C, Clemente JC, Knights D, Knight R, Gordon JI (May 2012). "Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography". Nature. 486 (7402): 222–7. Bibcode:2012Natur.486..222Y. doi:10.1038/nature11053. PMC   3376388 . PMID   22699611.
  13. ↑ Vasselon V, Rimet F, Tapolczai K, Bouchez A (November 2017). "Assessing ecological status with diatoms DNA metabarcoding: Scaling-up on a WFD monitoring network (Mayotte island, France)". Ecological Indicators. 82: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.024.
  14. ↑ Guo Y, Hou L, Zhang Z, Zhang J, Cheng J, Wei G, Lin Y (12 March 2019). "Soil Microbial Diversity During 30 Years of Grassland Restoration on the Loess Plateau: Tight Linkages With Plant Diversity". Land Degradation & Development. doi:10.1002/ldr.3300. S2CID   133936992.
  15. ↑ Morand S (April 2018). "Advances and challenges in barcoding of microbes, parasites, and their vectors and reservoirs". Parasitology. 145 (5): 537–542. doi: 10.1017/S0031182018000884 . PMID   29900810.
  16. ↑ Rosselló-Mora R (September 2005). "Updating prokaryotic taxonomy". Journal of Bacteriology. 187 (18): 6255–7. doi:10.1128/JB.187.18.6255-6257.2005. PMC   1236658 . PMID   16159756.
  17. ↑ Eckert EM, Fontaneto D, Coci M, Callieri C (December 2014). "Does a barcoding gap exist in prokaryotes? Evidences from species delimitation in cyanobacteria". Life. 5 (1): 50–64. doi: 10.3390/life5010050 . PMC   4390840 . PMID   25561355.
  18. ↑ Rappé MS, Suzuki MT, Vergin KL, Giovannoni SJ (January 1998). "Phylogenetic diversity of ultraplankton plastid small-subunit rRNA genes recovered in environmental nucleic acid samples from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the United States". Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 64 (1): 294–303. Bibcode:1998ApEnM..64..294R. doi:10.1128/AEM.64.1.294-303.1998. PMC   124708 . PMID   9435081.
  19. ↑ Van der Gucht K, Vandekerckhove T, Vloemans N, Cousin S, Muylaert K, Sabbe K, Gillis M, Declerk S, De Meester L, Vyverman W (July 2005). "Characterization of bacterial communities in four freshwater lakes differing in nutrient load and food web structure". FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 53 (2): 205–20. doi:10.1016/j.femsec.2004.12.006. PMID   16329941.
  20. 1 2 Nübel U, Garcia-Pichel F, Muyzer G (August 1997). "PCR primers to amplify 16S rRNA genes from cyanobacteria". Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 63 (8): 3327–32. Bibcode:1997ApEnM..63.3327N. doi:10.1128/AEM.63.8.3327-3332.1997. PMC   168636 . PMID   9251225.
  21. 1 2 Stiller JW, McClanahan AN (March 2005). "Phyto-specific 16S rDNA PCR primers for recovering algal and plant sequences from mixed samples". Molecular Ecology Notes. 5 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00805.x.
  22. ↑ Betournay S, Marsh AC, Donello N, Stiller JW (June 2007). "Selective recovery of microalgae from diverse habitats using 'phyto-specific' 16S rDNA primers". Journal of Phycology. 43 (3): 609–613. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8817.2007.00350.x. S2CID   84399666.
  23. ↑ Boutte C, Grubisic S, Balthasart P, Wilmotte A (June 2006). "Testing of primers for the study of cyanobacterial molecular diversity by DGGE". Journal of Microbiological Methods. 65 (3): 542–50. doi:10.1016/j.mimet.2005.09.017. hdl:2268/19902. PMID   16290299.
  24. 1 2 López-Legentil S, Song B, Bosch M, Pawlik JR, Turon X (22 August 2011). "Cyanobacterial diversity and a new acaryochloris-like symbiont from Bahamian sea-squirts". PLOS ONE. 6 (8): e23938. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...623938L. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023938 . PMC   3161822 . PMID   21915246.
  25. 1 2 Juteršek M, Klemenčič M, Dolinar M (December 2017). "Discrimination Between Synechocystis Members (Cyanobacteria) Based on Heterogeneity of Their 16S rRNA and ITS Regions". Acta Chimica Slovenica. 64 (4): 804–817. doi: 10.17344/acsi.2017.3262 . PMID   29318299.
  26. ↑ Seo PS, Yokota A (June 2003). "The phylogenetic relationships of cyanobacteria inferred from 16S rRNA, gyrB, rpoC1 and rpoD1 gene sequences". The Journal of General and Applied Microbiology. 49 (3): 191–203. doi: 10.2323/jgam.49.191 . PMID   12949700.
  27. ↑ Tomitani A, Knoll AH, Cavanaugh CM, Ohno T (April 2006). "The evolutionary diversification of cyanobacteria: molecular-phylogenetic and paleontological perspectives". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 103 (14): 5442–7. Bibcode:2006PNAS..103.5442T. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0600999103 . PMC   1459374 . PMID   16569695.
  28. ↑ Hess WR, Weihe A, Loiseaux-de Goër S, Partensky F, Vaulot D (March 1995). "Characterization of the single psbA gene of Prochlorococcus marinus CCMP 1375 (Prochlorophyta)". Plant Molecular Biology. 27 (6): 1189–96. doi:10.1007/BF00020892. PMID   7766900. S2CID   26973191.
  29. ↑ Morden CW, Golden SS (January 1989). "psbA genes indicate common ancestry of prochlorophytes and chloroplasts". Nature. 337 (6205): 382–5. Bibcode:1989Natur.337..382M. doi:10.1038/337382a0. PMID   2643058. S2CID   4275907.
  30. ↑ Vioque A (September 1997). "The RNase P RNA from cyanobacteria: short tandemly repeated repetitive (STRR) sequences are present within the RNase P RNA gene in heterocyst-forming cyanobacteria". Nucleic Acids Research. 25 (17): 3471–7. doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3471. PMC   146911 . PMID   9254706.
  31. ↑ Zehr JP, Mellon MT, Hiorns WD (April 1997). "Phylogeny of cyanobacterial nifH genes: evolutionary implications and potential applications to natural assemblages". Microbiology. 143 ( Pt 4) (4): 1443–50. doi: 10.1099/00221287-143-4-1443 . PMID   9141707.
  32. ↑ Henson BJ, Hesselbrock SM, Watson LE, Barnum SR (March 2004). "Molecular phylogeny of the heterocystous cyanobacteria (subsections IV and V) based on nifD". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 54 (Pt 2): 493–7. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.02821-0 . PMID   15023966.
  33. 1 2 Piccin-Santos V, Brandão MM, Bittencourt-Oliveira M (August 2014). Gabrielson P (ed.). "Phylogenetic study of Geitlerinema and Microcystis (Cyanobacteria) using PC-IGS and 16S-23S ITS as markers: investigation of horizontal gene transfer". Journal of Phycology. 50 (4): 736–43. doi:10.1111/jpy.12204. PMID   26988457. S2CID   37954121.
  34. ↑ Dadheech PK, Glöckner G, Casper P, Kotut K, Mazzoni CJ, Mbedi S, Krienitz L (August 2013). "Cyanobacterial diversity in the hot spring, pelagic and benthic habitats of a tropical soda lake". FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 85 (2): 389–401. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12128 . PMID   23586739.
  35. ↑ Kurobe T, Baxa DV, Mioni CE, Kudela RM, Smythe TR, Waller S, Chapman AD, Teh SJ (2013). "Identification of harmful cyanobacteria in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Clear Lake, California by DNA barcoding". SpringerPlus. 2 (1): 491. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-491 . PMC   3797325 . PMID   24133644.
  36. ↑ Gugger M, Lyra C, Henriksen P, Couté A, Humbert JF, Sivonen K (September 2002). "Phylogenetic comparison of the cyanobacterial genera Anabaena and Aphanizomenon". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 52 (Pt 5): 1867–80. doi: 10.1099/00207713-52-5-1867 . PMID   12361299.
  37. ↑ "UNITE". unite.ut.ee. Retrieved 2019-03-28.
  38. ↑ Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, et al. (January 2013). "The Protist Ribosomal Reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote small sub-unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy". Nucleic Acids Research. 41 (Database issue): D597–604. doi:10.1093/nar/gks1160. PMC   3531120 . PMID   23193267.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.