| Literature DB >> 30958628 |
Pavla Debeljak1,2, Eve Toulza3, Sara Beier4, Stephane Blain1, Ingrid Obernosterer1.
Abstract
Iron (Fe) is a limiting nutrient in large regions of the ocean, but the strategies of prokaryotes to cope with this micronutrient are poorly known. Using a gene-specific approach from metatranscriptomics data, we investigated seven Fe-related metabolic pathways in microbial communities from high nutrient low chlorophyll and naturally Fe-fertilized waters in the Southern Ocean. We observed major differences in the contribution of prokaryotic groups at different taxonomic levels to transcripts encoding Fe-uptake mechanisms, intracellular Fe storage and replacement and Fe-related pathways in the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. The composition of the prokaryotic communities contributing to the transcripts of a given Fe-related pathway was overall independent of the in situ Fe supply, indicating that microbial taxa utilize distinct Fe-related metabolic processes. Only a few prokaryotic groups contributed to the transcripts of more than one Fe-uptake mechanism, suggesting limited metabolic versatility. Taxa-specific expression of individual genes varied among prokaryotic groups and was substantially higher for all inspected genes in Fe-limited as compared to naturally fertilized waters, indicating the link between transcriptional state and Fe regime. Different metabolic strategies regarding low Fe concentrations in the Southern Ocean are discussed for two abundant prokaryotic groups, Pelagibacteraceae and Flavobacteriaceae.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30958628 PMCID: PMC6618146 DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.14621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Microbiol ISSN: 1462-2912 Impact factor: 5.491
Figure 1Location of sampling sites positions superimposed on the monthly composite satellite image of chlorophyll (μg L−1) provided by Copernicus Marine Service for (November 2011, 4 × 4 km). The grey line denotes 1000 m isobaths.
Location, date, biogeochemical properties and bulk prokaryotic parameters at the three study sites. All parameters are mean ± SD for the surface mixed layer.
| R‐2 | F‐L | A3‐2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Latitude S | 50.3590 | 48.5222 | 51.0333 |
| Longitude E | 66.7170 | 74.6500 | 72.0833 |
| Date of sampling | 26 October 2011 | 7 November 2011 | 16 November 2011 |
| Sampling depth (m) | 60 | 20 | 20 |
| Surface mixed layer (m) | 105 ± 15 | 38 ± 7 | 153 ± 15 |
| Dissolved and particulate nutrients | |||
| DOC (μM) | 47.8 ± 0.4 | 49.6 ± 1.3 | 51.3 ± 1.5 |
| DON (μM) | 6.1 ± 0.04 | 5.47 ± 1.33 | 6.44 ± 2.2 |
| DOP (μM) | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.26 ± 0.12 | 0.36 ± 0.04 |
| POC (μM) | 6.5 ± 1.8 | 11.5 ± 1.2 | 13.5 ± 1.8 |
| DFe (nmol L−1) | 0.13 ± 0.05 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 0.16 ± 0.03 |
| Chlorophyll a (μg L−1) | 0.25 ± 0.08 | 4.00 ± 1.58 | 2.03 ± 0.34 |
| Prokaryotic abundance (×105 cells mL−1) | 2.72 ± 0.3 | 6.06 | 3.16 ± 0.5 |
| Prokaryotic production (ng C L−1 h−1) | 2.59 ± 0.53 | 65.7 ± 1.62 | 19.9 ± 3.4 |
| Prokaryotic respiration (μmol O2 L−1 d−1) | 0.25 ± 0.12 | 1.37 ± 0.64 | 0.63 ± 0.45 |
From Tremblay et al. (2015).
From Blain et al. (2015).
From Queroue et al. (2016).
From Lasbleiz et al. (2014).
From Christaki et al. (2014).
Only one measurement for the surface mixed layer available.
Figure 2Relative contribution of prokaryotic groups to pathway specific transcripts. Prokaryotic group is defined until taxonomic family level. For clarity, one replicate per station is shown, duplicates as well as mean values and error estimates are shown in the Supporting Information (Fig. S2 and Table S2).
Figure 3Detailed view of relative contribution of Alpha (A) and Gammaproteobacteria (B) and FCB cluster (C) to pathway specific transcripts. Note the different y‐axis for Gammaproteobacteria. For clarity, one replicate per station is shown, duplicates as well as mean values and error estimates are shown in the Supporting Information (Fig. S3 and Table S2).
Figure 4Relative proportion of 16S rRNA gene sequences on the order level (data are from Landa et al. 2016).
Figure 5Percent contribution of pathway‐specific transcripts to total prokaryotic transcripts at a given site. Bars represent mean values and error bars represent minimum and maximum values.
Figure 6Taxa‐specific transcript abundance (per 105 cells) of a given pathway in HNLC (Station R‐2, white bars) and Fe‐fertilized waters (Station F‐L, grey bars), and the Log10 of the ratio between the cell‐specific transcripts at R‐2 to F‐L. The order of prokaryotic groups is from high to low cell‐specific transcripts at Station R‐2. The panel ‘All pathways’ shows the cell‐specific transcripts for all prokaryotic groups combined and the Log10 of the R‐2/F‐L ratios for the respective pathways, including ribosomal proteins. Bars represent mean values and error bars represent minimum and maximum values. Error estimates are given in the Supporting Information (Table S3). Ratios were calculated by dividing each duplicate pair.