Share your AquaBiomics results! :D

[Azedenkae]

Hey guys,

Keen to see what results people have been getting from their AquaBiomics or other sequencing services. If you can, could you guys share your results here?

Would love to see what types of microbes are being found.

 

[Azedenkae]

No one? D:

 

[AquaBiomics]

While I obviously can't share specific peoples' results I'll chime in with one new thing we've recently found. (And in this case, its not microbial)

In the most recent batch I found gill flukes for the first time. We often see Uronema in our eDNA but this was the first time we'd come across gill flukes.

We also found a tank infected with three different pathogens at once, I think that was a first.

 

[Azedenkae]

While I obviously can't share specific peoples' results I'll chime in with one new thing we've recently found. (And in this case, its not microbial)

In the most recent batch I found gill flukes for the first time. We often see Uronema in our eDNA but this was the first time we'd come across gill flukes.

We also found a tank infected with three different pathogens at once, I think that was a first.

Oh interesting. Any chance we could know the 'health' status of those tanks? XD

So here's what I am super interested in: do you notice any differences in nitrifiers identified from water samples versus samples obtained closer/of biomedia?

 

[AquaBiomics]

Oh interesting. Any chance we could know the 'health' status of those tanks? XD

So here's what I am super interested in: do you notice any differences in nitrifiers identified from water samples versus samples obtained closer/of biomedia?

Most of the bacteria in the nitrifying community are more abundant in the biofilm than the water. I havent tried sampling biofilm in different parts of the tank to directly answer your question.

Our tests include a biofilm sample in order to catch as many nitrifiers as possible.

Now - one important caveat about what I said above - its only true if you're counting by species. Most of the nitrifying types are in the biofilm.

But in fact by far the most abundant ammonia-oxidizer in saltwater aquariums are not Bacteria, but rather Archaea. In this case they are free-living Archaea that live in the water column. So the often repeated statement that nitrifiers don't live in the water is not strictly true. In fact, in terms of cell numbers, thats probably where most of them are. But many types (especially nitrite-oxidizing bacteria) are much more abundant in the biofilm.

 

[Azedenkae]

Most of the bacteria in the nitrifying community are more abundant in the biofilm than the water. I havent tried sampling biofilm in different parts of the tank to directly answer your question.

Our tests include a biofilm sample in order to catch as many nitrifiers as possible.

Now - one important caveat about what I said above - its only true if you're counting by species. Most of the nitrifying types are in the biofilm.

But in fact by far the most abundant ammonia-oxidizer in saltwater aquariums are not Bacteria, but rather Archaea. In this case they are free-living Archaea that live in the water column. So the often repeated statement that nitrifiers don't live in the water is not strictly true. In fact, in terms of cell numbers, thats probably where most of them are. But many types (especially nitrite-oxidizing bacteria) are much more abundant in the biofilm.

Interesting, though not necessarily surprising. In natural seawater, it does seem like nitrification is dominated by archaea (of the phylum Thermoproteota specifically) rather than bacteria, so that does check out.

A metatranscriptomic study, specifically of amo genes would be cool. Any chance you guys would do that? XD

 

[clifg]

While I obviously can't share specific peoples' results I'll chime in with one new thing we've recently found. (And in this case, its not microbial)

In the most recent batch I found gill flukes for the first time. We often see Uronema in our eDNA but this was the first time we'd come across gill flukes.

We also found a tank infected with three different pathogens at once, I think that was a first.

As someone who is awaiting their first results:

 

[SMSREEF]

Question for @AquaBiomics and @Jay Hemdal

I had a sample from my tank come back positive for Uronema Heteromarinum.

I can’t find any info about this organism causing disease in fish.

Do either of you have any information about this strain of Uronema and if it is harmful to fish?

 

[tammieh]

@AquaBiomics Can you tell me a little bit more about your tests? I recently combined two established tanks and had a clown that I've had for 8 years die. Not sure as to the cause, and am working on getting the tank emptied and doing a fallow period and treatment in QT. Would I need to get both the microbiome and tankDNA tests? One now and one once the fallow is complete? One of the QT water at the end of QT?

 

[Reef Puncher]

Most of the bacteria in the nitrifying community are more abundant in the biofilm than the water. I havent tried sampling biofilm in different parts of the tank to directly answer your question.

Our tests include a biofilm sample in order to catch as many nitrifiers as possible.

Now - one important caveat about what I said above - its only true if you're counting by species. Most of the nitrifying types are in the biofilm.

But in fact by far the most abundant ammonia-oxidizer in saltwater aquariums are not Bacteria, but rather Archaea. In this case they are free-living Archaea that live in the water column. So the often repeated statement that nitrifiers don't live in the water is not strictly true. In fact, in terms of cell numbers, thats probably where most of them are. But many types (especially nitrite-oxidizing bacteria) are much more abundant in the biofilm.

have you ever tested the different brands of bottled bacteria? are there some with more biodiversity than others? i would love someone to share the results of which brands are more diverse.