| Literature DB >> 21483836 |
Craig E Nelson1, Craig A Carlson.
Abstract
Nutrient enrichment of high-elevation freshEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21483836 PMCID: PMC3069079 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018320
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary of nutrient-induced shifts in relative abudance of dominant bacterial lineages.
| Represent. | Clone | Amplicon |
| LIGHT | DARK | Relevant | ||||
| Phylum | Concensus clade | Accession | count | TRF (bp) | TRF(bp) | N | P | N | P | Figure |
| Actinobacteria | Microbacteriaceae | EU914094 | 8 | 228.23 | 230 | − | −* | 5b | ||
| Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | EU914093 | 18 | 223.42 | 227 | −* | +* | − | 5a,6a | |
| Actinobacteria | Sporichthyaceae | EU914097 | 20 | 221.92 | 225 | |||||
| Bacteriodetes | Flavobacteriaceae | EU914089 | 25 | 518.02 | 515–517 | +* | 6d | |||
| Bacteriodetes | Chitinophagaceae | EU914013 | 14 | 326.16 | 327 | +* | 6e | |||
| Bacteriodetes | Sphingobacteriales | EU914014 | 27 | 31.38 | 39 | |||||
| β-proteobacteria | Alcaligenaceae | EU914084 | 6 | 216.28 | 219 | + | ||||
| β-proteobacteria | Polaromonads | EU914062 | 9 | 317.44 | 319 | 0 | 0 | 5e | ||
| β-proteobacteria | Comamonadaceae | EU914088 | 6 | 212.21 | 215 | − | 5c | |||
| β-proteobacteria | Comamonadaceae | EU914006 | 15 | 217.90 | 217 | −* | 6c | |||
| β-proteobacteria | Burkholderiales | EU914083 | 12 | 196.28 | 200 | 0 | 0 | +* | 5d | |
| Cyanobacteria | Subsection I | EU914078 | 5 | 220.41 | 224 | −* | 0 | 0 | 6b | |
| Verrucomicrobia | Opitutaceae | EU914072 | 7 | 218.37 | 222 | + | ||||
Symbols are as follows: + = increased relative contribution during experiment, − = decreased relative contribution during experiment, * = p<0.05, no star = p<0.1, blank = p>0.1, 0 = absent from treatment. Temporal dynamics of treatment responses are detailed in Figs. 5 and 6.
Clades are concensus classified to the most reduced taxonomic level where all clone sequences with the same in silico TRF length are classified with >95% probability by Bayesian classifier with the curated SILVA 16S sequence alignment. Clades are defined based on monophyletic in silico and measured TRF lengths of clones using the tree in Fig. S1.
Counts are the number of clones sequenced from Emerald Lake that satisy criteria of both having matching in silico TRF lengths across four clone libraries (96 clones each) reported in Nelson (2009) and sharing concensus classification within the SILVA 16S database. Clones and respective classifications are listed in Table S2. Clones are placed in phylogenetic context in a tree in Fig. S1.
TRF lengths are from amplicon digestions based on running cloned 16S DNA through TRFLP (left column) and in silico digestions based on the location of the restriction site in sequences (right column) of representative clones using the enzyme Hae III. Note that it is common to find discrepancies between predicted and actual TRF lengths; for further details see Nelson (2009).
Although the Flavobacteriaceae are split into two distinct clades with monophyletic in silico TRF lengths these clades could not be differentiated on actual TRFLP fragment analyses: representative clones from both clades ran at ∼518 bp.
Figure 5Temporal dynamics of selected TRF relative abundances which exhibited significant treatment effects during the DARK experiment.
Note that y-axis values are different for each taxa. Data are relative TRFLP peak fluorescences and should not be interpreted as absolute changes. See Table 1 for details of all TRF responses. Symbols are as follows: • = K2HPO4 additions (+P); ▾ = KNO3 additions (+N), □ = Control treatments. Error bars are ±1 standard deviation for two replicate microcosms for each treatment. Timepoints are offset for clarity.
Figure 6Temporal dynamics of selected TRF relative abundances which exhibited significant treatment effects during the LIGHT experiment.
Note that y-axis values are different for each taxa. Data are relative TRFLP peak fluorescences and should not be interpreted as absolute changes. See Table 1 for details of all TRF responses. Symbols are as follows: • = K2HPO4 additions (+P); ▾ = KNO3 additions (+N), □ = Control treatments. Error bars are ±1 standard deviation for three replicate microcosms for each treatment. Timepoints are offset for clarity.
Figure 1Bacterioplankton abundance and DOC concentration changes over the course of the DARK experiment.
Panels (a) and (c) show temporal responses among treatments, and RM-MANOVA p-values are presented for between-subjects treatment effects comparing each nutrient enrichment treatment with the Control, with treatment effects deemed significant and highlighted in bold if p<0.05. Letters denote significant differences between treatment means by Tukey-Kramer post hoc test at p<0.05. Panels (b) and (d) show rates of change in cell densities and DOC concentrations compared among treatments. Symbols are as follows: • = K2HPO4 additions (+P); ▾ = KNO3 additions (+N), □ = Control treatments. Error bars are ±1 standard deviation for two replicate microcosms for each treatment. Timepoints are offset for clarity.
Figure 23H-leucine incorporation over the course of the LIGHT experiment.
Statistics and symbols as for Fig. 1. Within-subjects effects (time and time X treatment) were significant for 3H-leucine incorporation (p<0.01). Symbols are as follows: • = K2HPO4 additions (+P); ▾ = KNO3 additions (+N), □ = Control treatments. Error bars are ±1 standard deviation for three replicate microcosms for each treatment. Timepoints are offset for clarity.
Figure 3Temporal dynamics of particulate carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations and ratios through the two experiments.
Symbols are as follows: • = K2HPO4 additions (+P); ▾ = KNO3 additions (+N), □ = Control treatments. Error bars are ±1 standard deviation for replicate microcosms for each treatment. Timepoints are offset for clarity.
Figure 4NMS ordination plots of changes in bacterial community composition during the LIGHT experiment.
Sampling dates are labeled according to their ordination position using brackets and arrows; lines connecting points follow the temporal trajectory. Results of MRPP comparing significance of each enrichment with the control on each date are presented as tables: values are effect size A, the chance-corrected within-group agreement for each treatment (A = 1 when all members of a group are identical; A<0 indicates more within-group heterogeneity than expected by chance) with significance tests represented as *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ns = [A<0 and p>0.05]. The DARK experiment (not shown) exhibited similar differences between P and Control treatments after the third day but no difference between N and Control treatments at any timepoint. Symbols are as follows: • = K2HPO4 additions (+P); ▾ = KNO3 additions (+N), □ = Control treatments. Error bars are ±1 standard deviation for replicate microcosms for each treatment.