% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{BlifernezKlassen:1019596,
      author       = {Blifernez-Klassen, Olga and Hassa, Julia and Reinecke-Levi,
                      Diana and Busche, Tobias and Klassen, Viktor and Kruse,
                      Olaf},
      title        = {{M}icrobial {D}iversity and {C}ommunity {S}tructure of
                      {W}astewater-{D}riven {M}icroalgal {B}iofilms},
      journal      = {Microorganisms},
      volume       = {11},
      number       = {12},
      issn         = {2076-2607},
      address      = {Basel},
      publisher    = {MDPI},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-05529},
      pages        = {20},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {Dwindling water sources increase the need for efficient
                      wastewater treatment. Solardrivenalgal turf scrubber (ATS)
                      system may remediate wastewater by supporting the
                      developmentand growth of periphytic microbiomes that
                      function and interact in a highly dynamic mannerthrough
                      symbiotic interactions. Using ITS and 16S rRNA gene amplicon
                      sequencing, we profiledthe microbial communities of four
                      microbial biofilms from ATS systems operated with
                      municipalwastewater (mWW), diluted cattle and pig manure
                      (CattleM and PigM), and biogas plant effluentsupernatant
                      (BGE) in comparison to the initial inocula and the
                      respective wastewater substrates.The wastewater-driven
                      biofilms differed significantly in their biodiversity and
                      structure, exhibitingan inocula-independent but
                      substrate-dependent establishment of the microbial
                      communities.The prokaryotic communities were comparable
                      among themselves and with other microbiomes ofaquatic
                      environments and were dominated by metabolically flexible
                      prokaryotes such as nitrifiers,polyphosphate-accumulating
                      and algicide-producing microorganisms, and anoxygenic
                      photoautotrophs.Striking differences occurred in eukaryotic
                      communities: While the mWW biofilm wascharacterized by high
                      biodiversity and many filamentous (benthic) microalgae, the
                      agriculturalwastewater-fed biofilms consisted of less
                      diverse communities with few benthic taxa mainly inhabitedby
                      unicellular chlorophytes and saprophytes/parasites. This
                      study advances our understandingof the microbiome structure
                      and function within the ATS-based wastewater treatment
                      process.},
      cin          = {IBG-2},
      ddc          = {570},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
      pnm          = {2152 - Water resources and the environment (POF4-215) /
                      2172 - Utilization of renewable carbon and energy sources
                      and engineering of ecosystem functions (POF4-217)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2152 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2172},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {38138138},
      UT           = {WOS:001131253900001},
      doi          = {10.3390/microorganisms11122994},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1019596},
}