4.6 Article

Ecogenomics of the SAR11 clade

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 1748-1763

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.14896

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad [CGL2016-76273-P, CGL2013-40564-R, SAF2013-49267-EXP, IJCI-2017-34002]
  2. Generalitat Valenciana [ACIF/2015/332]
  3. Betty Moore Foundation [5334]
  4. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [BES-2014-067828]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Members of the SAR11 clade, despite their high abundance, are often poorly represented by metagenome-assembled genomes. This fact has hampered our knowledge about their ecology and genetic diversity. Here we examined 175 SAR11 genomes, including 47 new single-amplified genomes. The presence of the first genomes associated with subclade IV suggests that, in the same way as subclade V, they might be outside the proposed Pelagibacterales order. An expanded phylogenomic classification together with patterns of metagenomic recruitment at a global scale have allowed us to define new ecogenomic units of classification (genomospecies), appearing at different, and sometimes restricted, metagenomic data sets. We detected greater microdiversity across the water column at a single location than in samples collected from similar depth across the global ocean, suggesting little influence of biogeography. In addition, pangenome analysis revealed that the flexible genome was essential to shape genomospecies distribution. In one genomospecies preferentially found within the Mediterranean, a set of genes involved in phosphonate utilization was detected. While another, with a more cosmopolitan distribution, was unique in having an aerobic purine degradation pathway. Together, these results provide a glimpse of the enormous genomic diversity within this clade at a finer resolution than the currently defined clades.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available