The specific microbial distribution in the ham may be resulted in periodic fermentation and enrichment for more than 30 years without interruption.
A comparison of overall microbial distribution in different fumigation years was conducted on the relative abundances of phyla, which were calculated using OTUs based on taxonomy, using Origin 9.0 software for histogram analysis.
The present work lends support to this hypothesis but with the caveat of environment dependent natural selection directing the frequency of microbial distribution in both modern and ancient populations.
This study discusses mechanisms influencing the spatial distributions of microorganisms in foods, three types of spatial distributions, i.e. regular, random, and clustered, the relationship between spatial distribution and frequency distributions, and the suitability of statistical distributions employed to model microbial distributions in foods.
No significant difference in microbial distribution was observed between SBP and bacterascites, except for a non-significant trend towards a greater proportion of Gram negative rod infections in SBP (p = 0.09) even though such infections were still in the minority (40.4% vs. 56.1% Gram-positive cocci in SBP, respectively).
Several biogeographical hypotheses have been proposed to explain microbial distribution, but there is ongoing debate about the magnitude of the contribution of niche based processes and historical contingencies in determining patterns of microbial structure.
Analysis of microbial distribution at the end of the study.
Microbial population distribution in bioreactors was not only affected by phenol concentration, but also by oxygen availability, the system configuration and the presence of intermediates formed during phenol metabolization.
Figure 4b clearly demonstrates that some MMV wells generated distinct genome profiles (original data in Additional file 14: Figure S12) by the GP method, suggesting a successful microbial cell distribution in different MMV wells and extraction and amplification of DNA in each well.
Secondly, there are large differences in microbial distributions between the two diets examined, regardless of the 16S database used (16S_Merge, Fig. 1B and C and 16S_Ref, Supplementary Fig. S1).
In general, similar microbial distributions were observed between the two sequencing platforms, despite the use of different PCR primer sets and phylogenetic analysis of partially overlapping sections of the 16S rRNA sequence (Table S2).
