Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Applied and Environmental Microbiology logoLink to Applied and Environmental Microbiology
. 1993 Apr;59(4):997–1002. doi: 10.1128/aem.59.4.997-1002.1993

Isolation and Diversity of Actinomycetes in the Chesapeake Bay †

Masayuki Takizawa 1, Rita R Colwell 2, Russell T Hill 2,*
PMCID: PMC202228  PMID: 16348922

Abstract

Chesapeake Bay was investigated as a source of actinomycetes to screen for production of novel bioactive compounds. The presence of relatively large populations of actinoplanetes (chemotype II/D actinomycetes) in Chesapeake Bay sediment samples indicates that it is an eminently suitable ecosystem from which to isolate actinomycetes for screening programs. Actinomycetes were isolated from sediment samples collected in Chesapeake Bay with an isolation medium containing nalidixic acid, which proved to be more effective than heat pretreatment of samples. Actinomycete counts ranged from a high of 1.4 × 105 to a low of 1.8 × 102 CFU/ml of sediment. Actinomycetes constituted 0.15 to 8.63% of the culturable microbial community. The majority of isolates from the eight stations studied were actinoplanetes (i.e., chemotype II/D), and 249 of these isolates were obtained in a total of 298 actinomycete isolates. Antimicrobial activity profiles indicated that diverse populations of actinoplanetes were present at each station. DNA hybridization studies showed considerable diversity among isolates between stations, but indicated that actinoplanete strains making up populations at nearby stations were more similar to each other than to populations sampled at distant stations. The diversity of actinoplanetes and the ease with which these organisms were isolated from Chesapeake Bay sediments make this a useful source of these actinomycetes.

Full text

PDF
997

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Fernández Pavón A., Vázquez J. J., García Muñoz M. S., Barbado F. J., López Pastor A., Arnalich F., Cuesta M. V., Gil A. Eosinofilia y alteraciones de la hemostasia. Rev Clin Esp. 1986 Oct;179(6):285–288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Goodfellow M., Williams S. T. Ecology of actinomycetes. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1983;37:189–216. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.37.100183.001201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jensen P. R., Dwight R., Fenical W. Distribution of actinomycetes in near-shore tropical marine sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 Apr;57(4):1102–1108. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.4.1102-1108.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lee S., Fuhrman J. A. DNA hybridization to compare species compositions of natural bacterioplankton assemblages. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990 Mar;56(3):739–746. doi: 10.1128/aem.56.3.739-746.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Voordouw G., Voordouw J. K., Karkhoff-Schweizer R. R., Fedorak P. M., Westlake D. W. Reverse sample genome probing, a new technique for identification of bacteria in environmental samples by DNA hybridization, and its application to the identification of sulfate-reducing bacteria in oil field samples. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 Nov;57(11):3070–3078. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.11.3070-3078.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Weyland H. Actinomycetes in North Sea and Atlantic Ocean sediments. Nature. 1969 Aug 23;223(5208):858–858. doi: 10.1038/223858a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Applied and Environmental Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES