| Literature DB >> 31921094 |
Kelly I Ramin1, Steven D Allison1,2.
Abstract
Like larger organisms, bacteria possess traits, or phenotypic characteristics, that influence growth and impact ecosystem processes. Still, it remains unclear how these traits are organized across bacterial lineages. Using 49 bacterial strains isolated from leaf litter in Southern California, we tested the hypothesis that bacterial growth rates trade off against extracellular enzyme investment. We also tested for phylogenetic conservation of these traits under high and low resource conditions represented, respectively, by Luria broth (LB) and a monomer-dominated medium extracted from plant litter. In support of our hypotheses, we found a negative correlation between the maximum growth rate and the total activity of carbon-, nitrogen-, and phosphorus-degrading extracellular enzymes. However, this tradeoff was only observed under high resource conditions. We also found significant phylogenetic signal in maximum growth rate and extracellular enzyme investment under high and low resource conditions. Driven by our bacterial trait data, we proposed three potential life history strategies. Resource acquisition strategists invest heavily in extracellular enzyme production. Growth strategists invest in high growth rates. Bacteria in a third category showed lower potential for enzyme production and growth, so we tentatively classified them as maintenance strategists that may perform better under conditions we did not measure. These strategies were related to bacterial phylogeny, with most growth strategists belonging to the phylum Proteobacteria and most maintenance and resource acquisition strategists belonging to the phylum Actinobacteria. By accounting for extracellular enzyme investment, our proposed life history strategies complement existing frameworks, such as the copiotroph-oligotroph continuum and Grime's competitor-stress tolerator-ruderal triangle. Our results have biogeochemical implications because allocation to extracellular enzymes versus growth or stress tolerance can determine the fate and form of organic matter cycling through surface soil.Entities:
Keywords: extracellular enzyme; leaf litter; life history strategy; maximum growth rate; phylogenetic conservation; soil bacteria; trait tradeoff
Year: 2019 PMID: 31921094 PMCID: PMC6933949 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree with 49 bacterial strains included in the study. Leaves show strain number and likely genus based on GenBank matches. Heatmap indicates relative magnitudes of growth rate, enzyme, and protein traits in Luria broth (LB) and plant litter broth (PB). Yellow corresponds to the minimum value, and red corresponds to the maximum value within each trait.
Figure 2Boxplots of trait values for bacterial strains growing on Luria broth (LB) and plant litter broth (PB). Only non-zero values are shown. (A) α-glucosidase; (B) acid phosphatase; (C) β-glucosidase; (D) β-xylosidase; (E) cellobiohydrolase; (F) leucine aminopeptidase; (G) N-acetyl-glucosaminidase; (H) the sum of AG, BG, BX, and CBH; (I) the sum of all enzyme activities; (J) protein level in the culture supernatant; (K) maximum growth rate (h−1). Boxes indicate the median and first and third quartiles. Whiskers indicate the data range, not including outlying points. (A) through (I) show (log+1)-transformed units of nmol mg−1 biomass h−1, and (J) shows (log+1)-transformed units of μg protein mg−1 biomass.
Figure 3Relationship between (log+1)-transformed total extracellular enzyme activity and bacterial growth rate in (A) Luria broth and (B) plant litter broth. Colors correspond to bacterial phyla, and shapes correspond to life history strategies in Luria broth. Strain numbers are shown next to symbols, and gray lines in (A) denote cutoffs between strategies.
Blomberg’s and Pagel’s phylogenetic signal of traits across 49 strains of bacteria growing on Luria broth (LB) or 20 strains growing on plant litter broth (PB).
| LB | PB | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Growth rate | 0.00750 | 1.093 | 0.0123 | 1.120 | ||||
| All enzymes | 0.00367 | 0.895 | 0.0423 | 0.715 | ||||
| AG | 0.00325 | 0.059 | 0.228 | 0.6378 | 0.061 | 1.004 | ||
| AP | 0.00834 | 0.125 | 0.037 | 0.365 | 0.0038 | 0.151 | 0.235 | 0.187 |
| BG | 0.00073 | 0.335 | 0.907 | 0.0261 | 0.245 | 0.121 | 0.405 | |
| BX | 0.00038 | 0.614 | 0.113 | 0.471 | 0.3550 | 0.197 | 5.1 × 10−5 | 1.000 |
| CBH | 0.01791 | 0.096 | 1.110 | |||||
| LAP | 0.00471 | 0.392 | 0.0180 | 0.262 | 0.445 | |||
| NAG | 0.00107 | 0.302 | 0.082 | 0.057 | 0.0045 | 0.654 | 5.5 × 10−5 | 1.000 |
| C enzymes | 0.00232 | 0.075 | 0.830 | 0.4018 | 1.040 | |||
| Protein | 0.00101 | 0.137 | 0.853 | |||||
p < 0.05, shown in bold.
On PB, CBH could not be analyzed due to low enzyme activities, and protein was not measurable.