| Literature DB >> 25684124 |
Caiyun Yang1, Yi Li1, Benjamin Zhou2, Yanyan Zhou1, Wei Zheng1, Yun Tian1, Joy D Van Nostrand3, Liyou Wu3, Zhili He3, Jizhong Zhou4, Tianling Zheng1.
Abstract
Although phytoplankton are the major source of marine dissolvedEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25684124 PMCID: PMC4329561 DOI: 10.1038/srep08476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Location of sampling sites.
This map was created based on PhotoShop (Version CS5) by CYY.
Figure 2Rarefaction curves of bloom and control samples.
Ratio of unclassified sequences at different taxonomic levels
| Relative abundance (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | Total | Bloom | Control |
| Phylum | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| Class | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.22 |
| Order | 1.27 | 1.08 | 1.48 |
| Family | 4.07 | 3.89 | 4.43 |
| Genus | 28.87 | 26.30 | 31.91 |
Figure 3Composition of the top 10 taxa at the (A) class, (B) order, (C) family, and (D) genus level for all samples.
Properties of samples during the Akashiwo sanguinea bloom in 2011 (Only the samples for comparison (bloom vs. control) are shown)
| Samples | T | Sal | pH | SP | DO | NO2− | NO3− | NH4+ | DIN | DIP | N/P | SiO4− | COD | CHLa | EI | BACT | TALG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1-1 | 31 | 24 | 7.99 | 2.8 | 5.25 | 0.032 | 0.186 | 0.009 | 0.227 | 0.021 | 11 | 0.87 | 4.66 | 67.91 | 4.84 | 4.60 × 1011 | 1.08 × 105 | 1.32 × 105 |
| A1-2 | 31 | 26 | 7.97 | 19.0 | 4.66 | 0.029 | 0.194 | 0.009 | 0.232 | 0.032 | 7.33 | 0.84 | 2.04 | 51.9 | 3.32 | 4.11 × 1011 | 2.05 × 105 | 2.36 × 105 |
| A1-3 | 30.8 | 28 | 7.89 | 15.5 | 4.57 | 0.030 | 0.355 | - - | - - | 0.026 | - - | 0.95 | 2.95 | 23.32 | - - | 9.96 × 1011 | 1.55 × 105 | 1.84 × 105 |
| A1-4 | 30 | 29 | 7.87 | 14.2 | 4.46 | 0.030 | 0.296 | 0.028 | 0.354 | 0.020 | 18.03 | 0.90 | 2.01 | 33.09 | 3.09 | 3.11 × 1011 | 0.81 × 105 | 0.99 × 105 |
| A1-5 | 30.5 | 25 | 7.84 | 13.8 | 3.9 | 0.013 | 0.117 | 0.018 | 0.147 | 0.010 | 15.38 | 0.57 | 1.89 | 52.97 | 0.59 | 2.86 × 1011 | 1.70 × 105 | 1.89 × 105 |
| A1-8 | 31 | 30 | 7.82 | 10.1 | 3.51 | 0.026 | 0.255 | 0.078 | 0.359 | 0.027 | 13.20 | 1.02 | 1.38 | 21.3 | 3.00 | - - | 0.10 × 105 | 0.37 × 105 |
| H1-1 | 31 | 24 | 7.89 | 13.6 | 6.17 | 0.043 | 0.183 | 0.002 | 0.228 | 0.012 | 18.96 | 0.79 | 1.45 | 38.65 | 0.88 | 1.77 × 1011 | 0.18 × 105 | 0.41 × 105 |
| H1-2 | 31 | 24 | 7.87 | 10.6 | - - | 0.027 | 0.213 | 0.026 | 0.266 | 0.013 | 20.87 | 0.56 | 0.97 | 28.13 | 0.74 | 1.00 × 1011 | 0.08 × 105 | 0.18 × 105 |
| H1-3 | 31 | 25 | 7.84 | 10.4 | 3.65 | 0.023 | 0.186 | 0.031 | 0.2393 | 0.024 | 10.06 | 0.68 | 1.26 | 31.31 | 1.59 | 0.75 × 1011 | 0.22 × 105 | 0.35 × 105 |
| H1-4 | 30.5 | 29 | 7.78 | 14.6 | 3.76 | 0.015 | 0.194 | 0.030 | 0.2385 | 0.012 | 20.24 | 0.79 | 1.36 | 21.58 | 0.85 | 1.23 × 1011 | 0.63 × 105 | 0.76 × 105 |
| H1-5 | 30.5 | 29 | 7.75 | 15.0 | 3.73 | 0.023 | 0.230 | 0.040 | 0.2927 | 0.009 | 34.02 | 0.94 | 1.04 | 23.14 | 0.58 | 2.38 × 1011 | 0.08 × 105 | 0.14 × 105 |
| H1-8 | 31.8 | 26 | 7.61 | 13.0 | 6.13 | 0.039 | 0.375 | 0.122 | 0.535 | 0.050 | 10.61 | 1.51 | 1.14 | 20.81 | 6.87 | - - | 0.33 × 105 | 0.36 × 105 |
The sample numbers indicate time (days), 1: 31 July; 2–5: 1–3 August; 8: 7 August. T: temperature, °C; Sal: salinity,%; SP: suspended particles, mg/L; DO: dissolved oxygen, mg/L; NO2−: nitrite nitrogen, mg/L; NO3−: nitrate nitrogen, mg/L; NH4+: ammonia nitrogen, mg/L; DIN: dissolved inorganic nitrogen, mg/L; DIP: dissolved inorganic phosphorus, mg/L; N/P: ratio of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and DIP; SiO4−: silicate mg/L; COD: chemical oxygen demand, mg/L; CHLa: chlorophyll a, ug/L; EI: Eutrophication index; BACT: bacterial density, cells/mL; A. sa: Akashiwo sanguinea density; TALG: total algal density; - -: not available.
Figure 4Rarefaction curves (A) and species richness (B) estimates for bloom and control samples using the Chao estimator method.
Figure 5Bacterial community structure at the genus level.
Only the top 10 genera are listed, (B): bloom, (C): control.
Dissimilarity tests of bacterial communities between bloom and control areas
| Euclidean | Manhattan | Jaccard | Bray | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | F | p | F | p | F | p | F | p |
| Day 1 | 0.28 | <0.01 | 0.46 | 0.03 | 8.67 | <0.01 | 2.95 | <0.01 |
| Day 3 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.59 | <0.01 | 6.95 | <0.01 | 5.63 | <0.01 |
| Day 4 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.41 | <0.01 | 8.17 | <0.01 | 2.76 | <0.01 |
| Day 5 | 0.21 | <0.01 | 0.31 | 0.05 | 5.81 | <0.01 | 1.81 | 0.02 |
Figure 6Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) of the bacterial community.
Figure 7Free-living bacterial Simpson evenness of the bloom and control groups.
Figure 8Unclassified sequence ratios of bloom and control areas at the genus level.
Figure 9Heat map illustrating the-fold change of genera identified in comparisons between the bloom vs. control areas.
Red-orange colors indicate an x-fold increase in abundance in the first comparison indicators, blue colors indicate a decrease. Percentages indicate relative abundances (total = 88.56% of all sequences). The color scale indicates the magnitude of the response ratio.
Figure 10Relative abundance of bacterial genera in the bloom and control areas.
Unique free-living bacteria in the bloom area
| Phylum | Class | Genus |
|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Microbacteriaceae |
| Bacteroidetes | Cytophagia | Cyclobacteriaceae |
| Flavobacteria | ||
| Sphingobacteria | ||
| Chloroflexi | SAR202 clade | |
| Deferribacteres | Deferribacteres | |
| Firmicutes | Bacilli | |
| Verrucomicrobia | Opitutae | |
| WCHB1-60 | WCHB1-60 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alpha-proteobacteria | |
| Delta-proteobacteria | ||
| Epsilon-proteobacteria | ||
| Gamma-proteobacteria | ||