29.01.2015 Views

ý.,,: V. ý ýý . - Nottingham eTheses - University of Nottingham

ý.,,: V. ý ýý . - Nottingham eTheses - University of Nottingham

ý.,,: V. ý ýý . - Nottingham eTheses - University of Nottingham

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

group other than the y-Proteobacteria. Therefore, this species was used as the outlier<br />

group in the phylogeny to root the tree. The multiple sequence alignment from PileUp<br />

was transferred into ClustalX 1.64b (Higgins et al., 1996). which was used to create a<br />

Phylip file for the production <strong>of</strong> the phylogenetic tree using the default weight parameters<br />

to produce a sequence distance matrix, which estimated the evolutionary distance <strong>of</strong> a<br />

particular pair <strong>of</strong> sequences based on differences in base pair substitutions. GeneDoc<br />

(Nicholas and Nicholas, 1997) was then used to examine and demonstrate that the<br />

alignment was correct by directly comparing the aligned sequences. Tree Puzzle version<br />

4 (Strimmer and von Haeseler, 1996) was then used to analyse the phylogeny and<br />

compute the maximum likelihood tree, i. e. the tree that best fits the sequence data. The<br />

maximum likelihood algorithm corrects for the superposition <strong>of</strong> multiple mutations at a<br />

single sequence position, so that the observed number <strong>of</strong> nucleotide differences do not<br />

underestimate the number <strong>of</strong> mutational events that may have occurred since the<br />

evolutionary separation <strong>of</strong> the genes (Olsen et al., 1986). The tree was created using the<br />

assumption that all the genes used in the alignment are mutating at a similar rate. The<br />

maximum likelihood tree was then viewed using TreeView 1.6.6 (Page, 2001) (Fig 5.4).<br />

It must be stressed that due to time limitations this may not be the most optimal tree, i. e.<br />

it may not be the best representation <strong>of</strong> the data. However, it is a good approximation <strong>of</strong><br />

the phylogenetic relatedness <strong>of</strong> the taxa.<br />

The phylogenetic tree (Fig 5.4) shows a similar pattern <strong>of</strong> relatedness to the<br />

ARDRA analysis (Fig 5.2a & b). Both isolates 302 and 33 cluster together in the<br />

Pseudomonas group. Isolate 732 clusters with the Enterobacteriaceae indicating its near<br />

identical similarity with Enterobacter agglomerans (syn. Pantoea agglomerans). also<br />

being closely related to Escherichia coll. Both isolates 86 and 39 cluster with<br />

Pseudoalteromonas sp. (Alteromonadaceae) as the most closely related group to the<br />

Enterobacteriaceae. The next group to join this clustering is the Idiomarina loihiensisf<br />

isolate 53 group (Alteromonadeceae). The Alteromonadeceae / Enterobacteriaceae group<br />

then joins on to the rest <strong>of</strong> the phylogeny, which comprises the Moraxellaceae family<br />

(Psychrobacter, Moraxella<br />

and isolate 583), Oceanospirillium group family<br />

(Marinotnonas protea taxon) and the Halomonadaceae family (Halomonas sp. and Arctic<br />

seawater bacterium). The Halomonadaceae family represent isolate 213 which could not<br />

140

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!