PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16349535

Analysis of BIOLOG GN Substrate Utilization Patterns by Microbial Communities.

Abstract

BIOLOG GN plates are increasingly used to characterize microbial communities by determining the ability of the communities to oxidize various carbon sources. Studies were done to determine whether the BIOLOG GN plate assay accurately reflects the catabolic potential of the inoculum used. To gain insight into which populations of microbial communities contribute to the BIOLOG patterns, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (TGGE) were used to assess the diversity of ribotypes in the inocula and individual wells of BIOLOG plates following incubation. These studies were done with microbial communities from the rhizosphere of potatoes and an activated sludge reactor fed with glucose and peptone. TGGE analyses of BIOLOG wells inoculated with cell suspensions from the potato rhizosphere revealed that, compared with the inoculum, there was a decrease in the number of 16S rRNA gene fragments obtained from various wells, as well as a concomitant loss of populations that had been numerically dominant in the inoculum. The dominant fragments in TGGE gels could be assigned to the gamma subclass of the class Proteobacteria, suggesting that fast-growing bacteria adapted to high substrate concentrations were numerically dominant in the wells and may have been primarily responsible for the patterns of substrate use that were observed. Similarly, the community structure changed in wells inoculated with cells from activated sludge; one or more populations were enriched, but all dominant populations of the inoculum could be detected in at least one well. This study showed that carbon source utilization profiles obtained with BIOLOG GN plates do not necessarily reflect the functional potential of the numerically dominant members of the microbial community used as the inoculum.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Smalla, U Wachtendorf, H Heuer, W T Liu, L Forney. 1998. Analysis of BIOLOG GN Substrate Utilization Patterns by Microbial Communities.. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.64.4.1220-1225.1998

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗