4.8 Article

Genomic variation in microbial populations inhabiting the marine subseafloor at deep-sea hydrothermal vents

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-01228-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NASA
  2. NASA Astrobiology Institute
  3. NASA Astrobiology Science and Technology for Exploring Planets (ASTEP) [NNX-327 09AB75G]
  4. Deep Carbon Observatory's Deep Life Initiative
  5. NSF Science and Technology Center for Dark Energy Biosphere Investigations (C-DEBI)
  6. NSF-OCE [OCE-1061863]
  7. Schmidt Ocean Institute [FX008-2013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Little is known about evolutionary drivers of microbial populations in the warm subseafloor of deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Here we reconstruct 73 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from two geochemically distinct vent fields in the Mid-Cayman Rise to investigate patterns of genomic variation within subseafloor populations. Low-abundance populations with high intra-population diversity coexist alongside high-abundance populations with low genomic diversity, with taxonomic differences in patterns of genomic variation between the mafic Piccard and ultramafic Von Damm vent fields. Populations from Piccard are significantly enriched in nonsynonymous mutations, suggesting stronger purifying selection in Von Damm relative to Piccard. Comparison of nine Sulfurovum MAGs reveals two high-coverage, low-diversity MAGs from Piccard enriched in unique genes related to the cellular membrane, suggesting these populations were subject to distinct evolutionary pressures that may correlate with genes related to nutrient uptake, biofilm formation, or viral invasion. These results are consistent with distinct evolutionary histories between geochemically different vent fields, with implications for understanding evolutionary processes in subseafloor microbial populations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available