Exact(36)
The inoculum contained phyla from the uncultured candidate division WS6 (18%), whereas microbial population in anaerobic samples collected after digestion appeared to be dominated (10 – 17%) by organisms from another candidate division (OP8).
The microbiota of the marine-water sponges was mainly characterised by the conspicuous presence of Poribacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, Candidate division SBR1093, Spirochaetes.
While other bacterial phyla (such as Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Actinobacteria, Chlorobi, Chlamydiae, Candidate division TM7, Bacteroidetes, Planctomycetes) showed high abundances only in the fresh water sponges.
Other phyla including Actinobacteria, Candidate division TM7, Cyanobacteria, Proteobacteria and Tenericutes, together contributed a lower percentage to the total bacterial sequences.
Using the improved primers, phylotypes affiliated with Verrucomicrobia and candidate division OP11, were detected in DGGE fingerprints of groundwater populations, which have not been detected by PCR/DGGE with conventional universal primers.
Bacterial groups of Bacteriodetes, Candidate division TM7, α-Proteobacteria, and β-Proteobacteria were dominant in the clone libraries of 16S rRNA genes retrieved from the microbial communities in the SBR system.
Similar(24)
It will be important to further evaluate the role of organisms in candidate divisions, as almost nothing is known of these microbes.
This indicated a large shift from inoculum to end BMP, with a dominant WS6 OTU being largely replaced by OP8 (both candidate divisions), and a number of other major OTUs.
Approximately 2% (1803) of the bacterial SSU ribo-tags were distributed over 20 candidate divisions (Table S6 in SI).
Sporadically and/or in low abundance we found sequences for the candidate divisions OD1, TM7 and BRC1 and the phyla Deinococcus-Thermus, Nitrospira, Planctomycetes and Chloroflexi.
The sequences therein were linked to taxa in the NCBI Taxonomy (as of June 2007), extended with 28 archaeal candidate divisions [38] (see Tables S1 and S2 in SI).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com