Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples

Prokaryotic communities in pristine and oil‐contaminated desert soil, seawater, and hypersaline coastal soil were analyzed using culture‐dependent and culture‐independent approaches. The former technique was the dilution‐plating method. For the latter, total genomic DNA was extracted and the 16S rRNA genes were amplified using a universal bacterial primer pair and primer pairs specific for Actinobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, and Archaea. The amplicons were resolved using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and sequenced, and the sequences were compared to those in GenBank. The plating method offered the advantages of capturing the targeted hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms, counting them and providing cultures for further study. However, this technique could not capture more than a total of 15 different prokaryotic taxa. Those taxa belonged predominantly to the genera Alcanivorax, Pseudoxanthomonas, Bosea, Halomonas, and Marinobacter. The individual isolates in culture consumed between 19 and 50% of the available crude oil in 10 days. Although the culture‐independent approach revealed much more microbial diversity, it was not problem‐free. The subdivision primers exhibited satisfactory specificity, but they failed to capture all the available taxa. The universal bacterial primer pair ignored Actinobacteria altogether, although the primer pair specific for Actinobacteria captured many of them, for example, the genera Geodermatophilus, Streptomyces, Mycobacterium, Pontimonas, Rhodococcus, Blastococcus, Kocuria, and many others. Because most researchers worldwide use universal primers for PCR, this finding should be considered critically to avoid misleading interpretations. The culture‐dependent analysis of environmental samples captured targeted hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms, but not all the actually existing ones. The molecular, culture‐independent method revealed much more microbial diversity, but the subdivision primers used failed to capture all the available taxa. The universal bacterial primer pair, for example, completely ignored Actinobacteria although the latter were actually very frequent in the samples, when Actinobacteria‐specific primers were used.