Send to

Choose Destination
J Microbiol Methods. 2003 Nov;55(2):337-49.

Improved strategy for presumptive identification of methanogens using 16S riboprinting.

Author information

Centre of Environment and Life Sciences, CSIRO Livestock Industries, Private Bag 5, Wembley, W.A. 6913, Australia.


The predicted 16S riboprint patterns of 10 restriction endonucleases for 26 diverse methanogens were compared to actual patterns produced on agarose gels. The observed patterns corroborated the expected riboprints. Our analyses confirmed that the endonuclease HaeIII gave the best results generating 15 different riboprint sets. Six of these 15 riboprints represented more than one strain. Of these, three riboprint sets were further differentiated: Methanomicrobium mobile, Methanolacinia paynteri, and Methanoplanus petrolearius were differentiated from each other by the endonuclease AluI; Methanofollis liminatans, Methanospirillum hungatei, and Methanoculleus bourgensis were differentiated from each other by HpaII; and the combination of FokI and MluNI was used to differentiate Methanobrevibacter sp. ZA-10, and Methanobrevibacter arboriphilicus strains DH-1, AZ, and DC from each other. We could not differentiate the following pairs of strains from each other: Methanosarcina mazeii S-6 and C16, Methanobacterium bryantii MoH and MoH-G, Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum GC-1 and DeltaH, and Methanobrevibacter arborophillicus DC and A2. This riboprint strategy provided a simple and rapid method to presumptively identify 22 of the 26 diverse strains of methanogens belonging to 13 genera from a range of environments.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center