| Literature DB >> 32899230 |
Roberta Iacono1, Beatrice Cobucci-Ponzano2, Federica De Lise2, Nicola Curci1,2, Luisa Maurelli2, Marco Moracci1,2,3, Andrea Strazzulli1,3.
Abstract
Terrestrial hot springs are of great interest to the general public and to scientists alike due to their unique and extreme conditions. These have been sought out by geochemists, astrobiologists, and microbiologists around the globe who are interested in their chemical properties, which provide a strong selective pressure on local microorganisms. Drivers of microbial community composition in these springs include temperature, pH, in-situ chemistry, and biogeography. Microbes in these communities have evolved strategies to thrive in these conditions by converting hot spring chemicals and organic matter into cellular energy. Following our previous metagenomic analysis of Pisciarelli hot springs (Naples, Italy), we report here the comparative metagenomic study of three novel sites, formed in Pisciarelli as result of recent geothermal activity. This study adds comprehensive information about phylogenetic diversity within Pisciarelli hot springs by peeking into possible mechanisms of adaptation to biogeochemical cycles, and high applicative potential of the entire set of genes involved in the carbohydrate metabolism in this environment (CAZome). This site is an excellent model for the study of biodiversity on Earth and biosignature identification, and for the study of the origin and limits of life.Entities:
Keywords: CAZymes; comparative metagenomics; environmental changes; extremozymes; microbial community; origin of life
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32899230 PMCID: PMC7570011 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25174023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1(A) View of the sampling site in July 2019. The sites A, B, and C are labeled by badges. (B) Agarose gel mDNA extraction from Site A. Lane M, Marker StoS 1Kb DNA Ladder (Genespin), lane A: mDNA from Site A. (C) Agarose gel of mDNA extractions from sites B and C. Lane M, Marker StoS 1Kb DNA Ladder (Genespin); lane B, mDNA from Site B; lane C, mDNA from Site C.
Figure 2Taxonomic assignment of the reads at the kingdom level.
Figure 3Taxonomic assignment of the reads at the genus level. Taxa showing less than 1% of assigned reads are grouped as “others”.
Figure 4Taxonomic assignment of the reads at the species level. Taxa showing less than 1% of assigned reads are grouped as “others”.
Relative abundances of the bacteria communities in the Sites A, B, and C.
| Genus | Site A (%) | Site B (%) | Site C (%) | Temperature Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.10 | 26.00 | 1.24 | Hyperthermophilic |
|
| 0.10 | 14.00 | 0.00 | Mesophilic/Moderately thermophilic a |
|
| 0.00 | 10.00 | 0.00 | Thermophilic |
|
| 0.00 | 9.00 | 1.24 | Hyperthermophilic |
|
| 15.00 | 4.00 | 0.00 | Mesophilic/Moderately thermophilic b |
|
| 6.00 | 0.50 | 10.00 | Mesophilic |
|
| 8.00 | 0.10 | 0.00 | Hyperthermophilic |
|
| 0.10 | 0.10 | 8.00 | Mesophilic |
| others (< 7% of bacterial reads) | 70.70 | 36.30 | 79.52 | mixed |
a [29,30,31]. b [32].
Figure 5(A) Number of reads in Sites A, B, and C assigned to bacteria. Black and grey indicate the reads assigned to the genera Shigella and Escherichia, respectively, and filtered as contaminants. In blue the number of validated reads used for the bacteria community analysis. (B) Bacteria community profile, relative abundances, and diversity: hyperthermophiles (red), thermophiles (orange), mesophiles (blue), others (each relative abundance % < 7, green).
Assembly statistics.
| Site A | Site B | Site C | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6296 | 38,136 | 16,854 |
|
| 9,459,744 | 53,411,732 | 18,962,457 |
|
| 1502 | 1400 | 1125 |
|
| 160 | 33 | 54 |
|
| 485,160 | 482,809 | 417,005 |
|
| 200 | 200 | 200 |
|
| 24,403 | 3592 | 2299 |
|
| 737 | 727 | 602 |
|
| 414 | 461 | 382 |
Taxonomic assignment of Sites A, B, and C CheckM validated clusters.
| Sample | Cluster | Phylum | Dominant Taxa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site A | Cluster 7 | Crenarchaeota |
|
| Cluster 12 | Crenarchaeota |
| |
| Cluster 17 | Crenarchaeota | ||
| Cluster 22 | Crenarchaeota |
| |
| Cluster 23 | Crenarchaeota | ||
| Site B | Cluster 2 | Mixed | mixed |
| Cluster 3 | Proteobacteria |
| |
| Cluster 4 | Firmicutes | ||
| Cluster 6 | Crenarchaeota | ||
| Cluster 7 | Crenarchaeota |
| |
| Cluster 8 | Firmicutes | ||
| Cluster 9 | Firmicutes | ||
| Cluster 11 | Proteobacteria | ||
| Cluster 13 | Crenarchaeota |
| |
| Cluster 14 | Firmicutes |
| |
| Cluster 15 | Firmicutes | ||
| Cluster 16 | Firmicutes |
| |
| Cluster 18 | Proteobacteria | ||
| Cluster 19 | Firmicutes | ||
| Cluster 20 | Mixed | mixed | |
| Site C | Cluster 1 | Crenarchaeota |
|
| Cluster 4 | Mixed | mixed | |
| Cluster 5 | Mixed | mixed | |
| Cluster 8 | Crenarchaeota | ||
| Cluster 10 | Crenarchaeota |
Percent of reads without match vs. NT aligned to each cluster.
| Site A | Site B | Site C | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % of Unassigned Reads Aligned | Cluster | % of Unassigned Reads Aligned | Cluster | % of Unassigned Reads Aligned |
| Cluster 1 | 0.59 | Cluster 1 | 0.15 | Cluster 1 * | 0.51 |
| Cluster 2 | 2.98 | Cluster 2 * | 3.71 | Cluster 2 | 0.32 |
| Cluster 3 | 0.05 | Cluster 3 * | 0.77 | Cluster 3 | 0.1 |
| Cluster 4 | 5.02 | Cluster 4 * | 3.83 | Cluster 4 * | 0.45 |
| Cluster 5 | 1.59 | Cluster 5 | 0.36 | Cluster 5 * | 2.17 |
| Cluster 6 | 1.07 | Cluster 6 * | 3.48 | Cluster 6 | 1.58 |
| Cluster 7* | 11.9 | Cluster 7 * | 36.51 | Cluster 7 | 0.48 |
| Cluster 8 | 0.05 | Cluster 8 * | 0.43 | Cluster 8 * | 4.4 |
| Cluster 9 | 13.93 | Cluster 9 * | 2.43 | Cluster 9 | 0.07 |
| Cluster 10 | 1.04 | Cluster 10 | 1.84 | Cluster 10 * | 85.64 |
| Cluster 11 | 1.22 | Cluster 11 * | 8.85 | Cluster 11 | 0.05 |
| Cluster 12 * | 4.17 | Cluster 12 | 0.08 | Cluster 12 | 0.68 |
| Cluster 13 | 8.38 | Cluster 13 * | 12.92 | Cluster 13 | 0.29 |
| Cluster 14 | 0.17 | Cluster 14 * | 0.38 | Cluster 14 | 0.61 |
| Cluster 15 | 3.71 | Cluster 15 * | 8.65 | Cluster 15 | 2.43 |
| Cluster 16 | 0.22 | Cluster 16 * | 2.62 | Cluster 16 | 0.22 |
| Cluster 17 * | 2.79 | Cluster 17 | 2.04 | ||
| Cluster 18 | 5.73 | Cluster 18 * | 6.75 | ||
| Cluster 19 | 1.23 | Cluster 19 * | 1.88 | ||
| Cluster 20 | 0.05 | Cluster 20 * | 2.19 | ||
| Cluster 21 | 0.76 | Cluster 21 | 0.13 | ||
| Cluster 22 * | 14.89 | ||||
| Cluster 23 * | 18.2 | ||||
| Cluster 24 | 0.02 | ||||
| Cluster 25 | 0.24 | ||||
* Clusters validated by CheckM.
iRep indices for validate clusters in sites A, B, and C.
| Sample | Cluster | iRep Index | Dominant Taxa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site A | Cluster 7 | 1.32 |
|
| Site B | Cluster 11 | n/a | |
| Cluster 13 | n/a |
| |
| Cluster 15 | n/a | ||
| Cluster 18 | n/a | ||
| Cluster 2 | 1.57 | Thermoanaerobacteriales | |
| Cluster 4 | 1.51 | ||
| Cluster 6 | 1.39 | ||
| Cluster 7 | n/a |
| |
| Cluster 9 | n/a | ||
| Site C | Cluster 5 | n/a | mixed |
| Cluster 10 | n/a |
n/a: not applicable.
Figure 6COG analysis of the metagenomes in Pisciarelli hot springs. Sites A, B, and C are compared according to COG functional categories.
Figure 7Functional annotation according to the SEED database of the metagenomes in Pisciarelli sites A, B, and C.
Taxonomic assignment of CAZymes.
| Phylum | Site A | Site B | Site C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crenarchaeota | 76.0 | 15.2 | 92.8 |
| Aquificae | 16.4 | 2.9 | 0 |
| Viruses | 3.8 | 0.6 | 5.6 |
| Thermodesulfobacteria | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0 |
| Euryarchaeota | 0.6 | 2.2 | 0.4 |
| Nitrospirae | 0.0 | 1.7 | 0 |
| Thermotogae | 0.0 | 2.9 | 0 |
| Firmicutes | 0.0 | 71.1 | 0.8 |
| Others (<1%) | 1.9 | 3.2 | 0.4 |
Figure 8Taxonomic assignment of the CAZymes identified in sites A, B, and C. The filled area of the rectangle indicates, on a logarithmic scale, the number of ORFs assigned to each taxon.
Figure 9Identity percentages of the CAZymes annotated in the sites A, B, and C against homologs in the Refseq Protein Database.
Figure 10Distribution of glycosidases among the sites A, B, and C. The ORF number assigned to GHs from each sample is displayed.
Shared GHs families among the sites.
| Sites | Number of GHs Families | Shared GHs Families |
|---|---|---|
| Site A, Site B, and Site C | 12 | GH1, GH12, GH13, GH15, GH31, GH36, GH38, GH57, GH101, GH116, GH122, GH133 |
| Site A and Site B | 8 | GH4, GH16, GH23, GH26, GH2, GH77, GH99, GH130 |
| Site B and Site C | 4 | GH3, GH5, GH78, GH109 |
| Site B | 48 | GH0, GH2, GH6, GH8, GH10, GH14, GH18, GH19, GH20, GH24, GH25, GH27, GH29, GH30, GH32, GH35, GH39, GH42, GH43, GH51, GH52, GH53, GH63, GH65, GH66, GH67, GH73, GH81, GH84, GH92, GH94, GH95, GH97, GH102, GH103, GH105, GH106, GH108, GH120, GH123, GH125, GH127, GH15, GH141, GH144, GH151, GH161, GH163 |
Figure 11Distribution of the (A) glycosyltransferase, (B) carbohydrate esterases, (C) carbohydrate-binding modules, (D) auxiliary activities and polysaccharide lyases among the Pisciarelli sites. The ORFs number assigned to each family from the three samples is displayed.