¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ / v.37, no.4, 2004³â, pp.363-367
³«µ¿°­¿¡¼­ÀÇ ¼¼±Õ±ºÁý±¸Á¶ÀÇ ¿ªµ¿¼º
( Dynamics of in situ Bacterial Community Structure in the Nak-Dong River )
¹ÚÁöÀº;¿©»ó¹Î;ÀÌ¿µ¿Á; ´ë±¸´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;´ë±¸´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;´ë±¸´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
³«µ¿°­ Àü ¼ö°è 8°³ Á¤Á¡¿¡¼­ ºÐÀÚ±â¹ýÀÎ FISH (Fluorescent in situ Hybridization)¹ýÀ¸·Î ¼¼±Õ±ºÁý±¸Á¶¸¦ ºñ±³ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Eubacteria¿¡ ${alpha};{cdot};{eta};{cdot};{gamma}-subclasses$ proteobacter CF group ¼¼±ÕÀÇ ÇÕÀÌ ÃѼ¼±º¼ö¿¡¼­ Â÷ÁöÇÏ´Â ºñÀ²ÀÌ 9.3-42.5%¿¡¼­ º¯È­ÇÏ¿´°í ±× ÃÖ°íÄ¡´Â È÷»ó·ù, û·®¿¡¼­ ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. °¢ ¼¼±Õ±×·ìÀÌ ÃѼ¼±Õ¼ö¿¡¼­ Â÷ÁöÇÏ´Â ºñÀ²ÀÌ 10% ¹Ì¸¸À̾úÀ¸³ª ÃÖ»ó·ù¿¡¼­ÀÇ CF±×·ìÀÌ ÃѼ¼±Õ¼ö¿¡¼­ Â÷ÁöÇÏ´Â ºñÀ²Àº 23%À̾ú´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ À¯±â¹°ÁúÀ» ºÐÇØÇØ¼­ ºü¸¥ ¼ºÀåÀ» ÇÑ´Ù´Â ${gamma}-subclasses$ proteobacteria ¼¼±Õ±ºÀÌ ¿¹»ó°ú´Â ´Þ¸® À¯±â¿À¿°Á¤µµ°¡ ³ôÀº ÇÏ·ù¿¡ ºñÇØ »ó·ù¿¡¼­ ´õ ¸¹ÀÌ °ËÃâµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¾Æ¿ï·¯ ¾Ï¸ð´Ï¾Æ»êÈ­¼¼±ÕÀº $2.7-18.0{ imes}10^4$ cells $mL^{-1}$ÀÇ ¹üÀ§¿¡¼­ º¯È­ÇÏ¿´°í ÇÏ·ù¿¡¼­ ÃÖÀúÄ¡¸¦ ±×¸®°í ÃÖ°íÄ¡´Â Áß·ù¿¡¼­ º¸¿´´Ù. ¹Ý¸é¿¡ ¾ÆÁú»ê»êÈ­¼¼±ÕÀÇ °æ¿ì, Àü¼ö°è¿¡ °ÉÃÄ Á¤Á¡°£ÀÇ º° Â÷ÀÌ ¾øÀÌ $5.2-7.7{ imes}10^4$ Cells $mL^{-1}$¿¡¼­ º¯È­ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ±×µéÀÌ ÃѼ¼±Õ¼ö¿¡¼­ Â÷ÁöÇÏ´Â ºñÀ²Àº µÎ¼¼±Õ±º°£ÀÇ Â÷À̾øÀÌ 1.0-13.6%¿¡¼­ º¯È­ÇÏ¿´´Ù. °á·ÐÀûÀ¸·Î FISH¹ýÀº Åë»óÀûÀ¸·Î ¼¼±Õ±ºÁýÀÇ Á¤·®ÀûÀÎ ºÐ¼®¿¡ »ç¿ëµÇÁö¸¸ ±× °á°ú´Â º» ¿¬±¸°á°ú¿¡¼­ º¸´Â ¹Ù¿Í °°ÀÌ ¼ö°è ȯ°æÀÇ ÇöȲ¿¡ °üÇÑ ÁÁÀº Á¤º¸¸¦ Á¦°øÇØÁֱ⵵ ÇÑ´Ù.
For comparative analysis of the eubacterial community structure at 8 sampling sites throughout the Nak-Dong River, FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization) method was employed. The total ratio of each determined eubacterial group such as ${alpha};{cdot};{eta};{cdot};{gamma}-subclasses$proteobacteria and Cytophaga-Flavobacterium(CF) group to total counts(DAPI) at each site varied 9.3-42.5% with the highest value at uppermost part. And each ratio of determined eubacterial groups reached mostly under 10% except that of CF group (23%) at uppermost part. Furthermore, compared to lower part, upper part represented unexpectedly higher proportions of ${gamma}-subclass$ proteobacteria comprised almost fast growing bacteria on degradable organics. Also the variations of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria ranged from $2.7{ imes}10^4$ to $18.0{ imes}10^4$ cells $mL^{-1}$ with the lowest value in lower part and the highest value in mid part whereas those of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria varied 5.2-7.7{ imes}10^4$ cells $mL^{-1}$ without noticeable differences throughout the sites. Additionally, the ratio of nitrifying bacteria to total counts ranged from 1.0% to 13.6% with no differences between ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria. In conclusion, FISH method introduced in this study for monitoring, normally used for the quantitative analysis of bacteria, provided also good information on their environmental status in the Nak-Dong River.
 
Ű¿öµå
FISH(fluorescence in situ hybridization);${alpha}{cdot}{eta}{cdot}{gamma}-subclasses$ proteobacteria;Cytophaga-Flavobacterium group;nitrifying bacteria;Nak-Dong River;
 
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.37, no.4, 2004³â, pp.363-367
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200418317183428)
¾ð¾î : ¿µ¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿