In 16S rRNA gene libraries the shared OTUs between three soils increased significantly on decreasing the similarity cut-off. This pattern was also evident from the cbbL-gene sequence analysis. The rarefaction curve of form IC cbbL-gene sequences

(distance = 0.05) did not reach an asymptote in AS clone library whereas rarefaction curves reached near saturation in SS1 & SS2 clone libraries (Additional file 6: Figure S4a). Rarefaction curves VX-680 for 16S rRNA gene libraries reached near an asymptote for SS1 and SS2 saline soils at the estimated phylum level 80% (Additional file 6: Figure S4b). The agricultural soil gene library represented non asymptotic curve at phylum level (80%) as well as at the species level (98%) similarity cut-off. In general, the bacterial species richness in agricultural soil was greater than saline soils as indicated by the

inclines in rarefaction curves. Table 2 Biodiversity and predicted richness of the cbbL and 16S rRNA gene sequences Genes No of clones Coverage (%) Evenness(J) Shannon Weiner (H) Simpson (1-D) Sobs1(OTU) Selleckchem Crenolanib Chao ACE No of Singletons cbbL form IC                   AS 141 83 0.92 3.7 0.98 58 71.8 87.2 24 SS1 99 91 0.92 3.2 0.96 32 34.3 37.6 8 SS2 103 91 0.94 3.5 0.97 40 43.6 43.8 9 cbbL form IA                   SS2 28 82 0.58 1.2 0.55 8 11.3 16.8 5 16S rRNA                   AS 147 33 0.92 4.3 0.98 109 584.3 4626.3 98 SS1 97 56 0.92 3.7 0.97 55 206.5 553.5 41 SS2 85 36 0.93 3.9 0.97 63 311.5 1278.9 53 1OTUs for cbbL-gene clone libraries were determined at a 0.05 distance Liothyronine Sodium cut-off and OTUs for 16S rRNA clone libraries were determined at a 0.02 cut-off using the MOTHUR program. The Coverage, Shannon-Weiner (H), Simpson (1-D), Evenness (J) indices and Chao & ACE richness estimators were calculated using the OTU data. The lack of substantial overlap between soil clone

libraries suggests that bacterial communities were unique to each soil habitat. This observation was statistically supported by using LIBSHUFF (P = 0.001 for the average pairwise comparison for three sites), suggested that the bacterial communities retrieved from cbbL and 16S rRNA analysis were significantly different from one another across the sites (Additional file 7: Figure S5). The difference between homologous and heterologous coverage curves was determined by distribution of ΔC as a function of check details evolutionary distance. Our results showed significant difference between libraries with considerable ΔC values at D below 0.2 (Additional file 7: Figure S5). This result suggests that differences were between closely related sequences. This conclusion was also supported by the phylogenetic trees in which the sequences from different clone libraries often group near each other but were rarely identical. We employed phylogenetic tree based comparisons, the UniFrac metric, and phylogenetic P-test to cbbL and 16S rRNA clone libraries.