we might have to stop talking about bacteria...

Rhizomorph

Junior Poster
Feb 24, 2015
14
1
1
Hey Tom, I suspect that's due to the primers used in the older study. The 16S primers used by the older study 27F/1492R do amplify some Archaea -- but there's plenty they miss. In 2001, this group of Archaea wasn't well understood either :p (it's still not for the most part!). 2001 predates the modern changes in microbial ecology that are associated with (largely) improvements in DNA sequencing technologies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
745
113
Timothy Hoevanec is well cited within the hobby FYI(Link to the paper I provided's author). .....so it brings up some new information and some that needs addressed as well.
 

Rhizomorph

Junior Poster
Feb 24, 2015
14
1
1
I think it would be a good idea for someone to test this with some more modern, broader-specificity primers. I've work with mixed archaeal and bacterial communities and have found the TX9/1391R primers to provide better coverage of both groups -- but like any primer pair, they are going to have biases. One other way it could be approached is using a metagenomic approach -- but this is a much more expensive (and complicated) undertaking. -- Rhizomorph.