Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJNA1099207 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRR28627500_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR28627500_2.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR28627501_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR28627501_2.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR28627502_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 176 |
Similar Datasets
Project description:High Arctic soils have low nutrient availability, low moisture content and very low temperatures and, as such, they pose a particular problem in terms of hydrocarbon bioremediation. An in-depth knowledge of the microbiology involved in this process is likely to be crucial to understand and optimize the factors most influencing bioremediation. Here, we compared two distinct large-scale field bioremediation experiments, located at Alert (ex situ approach) and Eureka (in situ approach), in the Canadian high Arctic. Bacterial community structure and function were assessed using microarrays targeting the 16S rRNA genes of bacteria found in cold environments and hydrocarbon degradation genes as well as reverse-transcriptase real-time PCR targeting key functional genes. Results indicated a large difference between sampling sites in terms of both soil microbiology and decontamination rates. A rapid reorganization of the bacterial community structure and functional potential as well as rapid increases in the expression of alkane monooxygenases and polyaromatic hydrocarbon ring-hydroxylating-dioxygenases were observed one month after the bioremediation treatment commenced in the Alert soils. In contrast, no clear changes in community structure were observed in Eureka soils, while key gene expression increased after a relatively long lag period (1 year). Such discrepancies are likely caused by differences in bioremediation treatments (i.e. ex situ vs. in situ), weathering of the hydrocarbons, indigenous microbial communities, and environmental factors such as soil humidity and temperature. In addition, this study demonstrates the value of molecular tools for the monitoring of polar bacteria and their associated functions during bioremediation. 38 soil samples from two high arctic locations that were contaminated-treated, contaminated or not contaminated followed for up to 4 years
2010-05-15 | E-GEOD-17517 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:High Arctic soils have low nutrient availability, low moisture content and very low temperatures and, as such, they pose a particular problem in terms of hydrocarbon bioremediation. An in-depth knowledge of the microbiology involved in this process is likely to be crucial to understand and optimize the factors most influencing bioremediation. Here, we compared two distinct large-scale field bioremediation experiments, located at Alert (ex situ approach) and Eureka (in situ approach), in the Canadian high Arctic. Bacterial community structure and function were assessed using microarrays targeting the 16S rRNA genes of bacteria found in cold environments and hydrocarbon degradation genes as well as reverse-transcriptase real-time PCR targeting key functional genes. Results indicated a large difference between sampling sites in terms of both soil microbiology and decontamination rates. A rapid reorganization of the bacterial community structure and functional potential as well as rapid increases in the expression of alkane monooxygenases and polyaromatic hydrocarbon ring-hydroxylating-dioxygenases were observed one month after the bioremediation treatment commenced in the Alert soils. In contrast, no clear changes in community structure were observed in Eureka soils, while key gene expression increased after a relatively long lag period (1 year). Such discrepancies are likely caused by differences in bioremediation treatments (i.e. ex situ vs. in situ), weathering of the hydrocarbons, indigenous microbial communities, and environmental factors such as soil humidity and temperature. In addition, this study demonstrates the value of molecular tools for the monitoring of polar bacteria and their associated functions during bioremediation. 38 soil samples from two high arctic locations that were contaminated-treated, contaminated or not contaminated followed for up to 4 years
2010-06-19 | E-GEOD-17532 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:A functional microarray targeting 24 genes involved in chlorinated solvent biodegradation pathways has been developed and used to monitor the gene diversity present in four trichloroethylene (TCE) contaminated sites under ERD (enhanced reductive dechlorination) treatment. The microarray format provided by NimbleGen and used in this study is 12x135K. 2 µg of labelled gDNA from 30 groundwater samples were hybridized on the microarrays.
2012-04-03 | GSE28606 | GEO
Project description:A functional microarray targeting 24 genes involved in chlorinated solvent biodegradation pathways has been developed and used to monitor the gene diversity present in four trichloroethylene (TCE) contaminated sites under ERD (enhanced reductive dechlorination) treatment. The microarray format provided by NimbleGen and used in this study is 12x135K. 2 M-BM-5g of labelled gDNA from 30 groundwater samples were hybridized on the microarrays. A 30-chip study was performed, each chip corresponding to hybridization with 2 M-BM-5g of labelled gDNA retrieved from a monitoring well from one of the four contaminated sites. Each probe (760nt) on the microarray was synthesized in eight replicates, and a total of 5,707 random probes was used to determine the background noise. Groundwater samples were collected from four contaminated sites (B, F, G and H), four monitoring wells per site (P1, P2, P3 and P4). P1: well located upstream to the contamination source. P2: well in the contamination source. P3 and P4: wells located downstream to the contamination source. For site B, the monitoring of ERD demonstration was performed through a total of 5 sampling campaigns: C1 (T=0), C2 (T=104 days), C3 (T=231 days), C4 (T=291 days) and C5 (T=378 days). For the three other sites (F, G and H), only one sampling campaign was performed after the treatment.
2012-04-02 | E-GEOD-28606 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Comparison of bacterial communities at petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites through 16S rRNA pyrosequencing
| PRJNA306989 | ENA