| Literature DB >> 34620710 |
Brandon Kieft1, Zhou Li2,3, Samuel Bryson4,5, Robert L Hettich2, Chongle Pan2,3,6, Xavier Mayali7, Ryan S Mueller1.
Abstract
Blooms of marine phytoplankton fix complex pools of dissolved organic matter (DOM) that are thought to be partitioned among hundreds of heterotrophic microbes at the base of the food web. While the relationship between microbial consumers and phytoplankton DOM is a key component of marine carbon cycling, microbial loop metabolism is largely understood from model organisms and substrates. Here, we took an untargeted approach to measure and analyze partitioning of four distinct phytoplankton-derived DOM pools among heterotrophic populations in a natural microbial community using a combination of ecogenomics, stable isotope probing (SIP), and proteomics. Each 13C-labeled exudate or lysate from a diatom or a picocyanobacterium was preferentially assimilated by different heterotrophic taxa with specialized metabolic and physiological adaptations. Bacteroidetes populations, with their unique high-molecular-weight transporters, were superior competitors for DOM derived from diatom cell lysis, rapidly increasing growth rates and ribosomal protein expression to produce new relatively high C:N biomass. Proteobacteria responses varied, with relatively low levels of assimilation by Gammaproteobacteria populations, while copiotrophic Alphaproteobacteria such as the Roseobacter clade, with their diverse array of ABC- and TRAP-type transporters to scavenge monomers and nitrogen-rich metabolites, accounted for nearly all cyanobacteria exudate assimilation and produced new relatively low C:N biomass. Carbon assimilation rates calculated from SIP data show that exudate and lysate from two common marine phytoplankton are being used by taxonomically distinct sets of heterotrophic populations with unique metabolic adaptations, providing a deeper mechanistic understanding of consumer succession and carbon use during marine bloom events.Entities:
Keywords: dissolved organic matter; microbial loop; phytoplankton bloom; proteomics SIP; resource partitioning
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34620710 PMCID: PMC8521717 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2101178118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.PCoA plot depicting taxonomic structures of the unlabeled (A) and labeled (B) fractions of metaproteomes in the four DOM treatments. Proportion of variance explained in PCoA plots is shown along each axis in parentheses.
Fig. 2.Stacked bars represent the taxonomic composition of labeled metaproteomes in each DOM treatment, shown as relative NBSC abundance of order-level population-labeled proteomes in the three major microbial lineages. Community proteins not assigned to these three lineages are not shown but are included in the relative abundance calculations (A). Line plots depict absolute NBSC abundance of labeled proteins organized by average enrichment (ENRV histogram of 2 to 100% 13C in 3% bins) across treatments for the three major lineages (B).
Fig. 3.The functional structure of the initial no-incubation control community metaproteome (T0) compared to that of each postincubation treatment (the T15 no-substrate control plus the four DOM substrates). Data for the T0 and T15 control samples show the functional structure of total proteins recovered (all unlabeled because no 13C was amended), while data for the four DOM treatments show functional structures of only labeled proteins to highlight de novo protein synthesis responses by each lineage. The mean relative NBSC abundance of each of the 10 major functions on the right y-axis is faceted into three columns representing the proteomes of each of the three major lineages. Points are colored and shaped by treatment, and lines connecting T0 with each postincubation treatment are colored by treatment.
Fig. 4.Assimilation metrics (calculated as square root–transformed ENRV*LF) of the three major lineages across substrate treatments (A). Average growth rate estimates of high-quality MAG populations in each lineage across substrate treatments (B). Bars in (A) and (B) depict the SE of each value from triplicate samples. The scatterplot of estimated carbon:nitrogen requirements of newly synthesized proteins in relation to the G+C content of DNA encoding those proteins for significantly enriched genera in each major lineage (C).
Estimations of carbon assimilation rate (ng 13C ⋅ L−1 ⋅ d−1) for each major lineage across the substrate treatments
| Lineage | Treatment | Mean C assimilation rate (ng 13C ⋅ L−1 ⋅ d−1) | SE of C assimilation rate |
| Alphaproteobacteria | CEx | 1,472.35232 | 20.7143259 |
| Alphaproteobacteria | CLy | 1,769.06243 | 68.2803903 |
| Alphaproteobacteria | DEx | 2,138.59708 | 3.93247522 |
| Alphaproteobacteria | DLy | 1,738.27875 | 76.1195034 |
| Bacteroidetes | CEx | 39.5413883 | 8.77430344 |
| Bacteroidetes | CLy | 669.653816 | 118.222284 |
| Bacteroidetes | DEx | 956.068627 | 6.35663931 |
| Bacteroidetes | DLy | 3,571.80057 | 118.436686 |
| Gammaproteobacteria | CEx | 60.8903329 | 5.05937951 |
| Gammaproteobacteria | CLy | 91.5045243 | 4.0882636 |
| Gammaproteobacteria | DEx | 259.002335 | 5.2456264 |
| Gammaproteobacteria | DLy | 203.802878 | 16.0257199 |
See for the full table of empirically derived and cited values used to calculate these rates as well as replicate data used to calculate averages and SEs. See for plotted rate values.