4.6 Article

A tale of two mixotrophic chrysophytes: Insights into the metabolisms of two Ochromonas species (Chrysophyceae) through a comparison of gene expression

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192439

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation [GBMF3299]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ochromonas spp. strains CCMP1393 and BG-1 are phagotrophic phytoflagellates with different nutritional strategies. Strain CCMP1393 is an obligate phototroph while strain BG-1 readily grows in continuous darkness in the presence of bacterial prey. Growth and gene expression of strain CCMP1393 were investigated under conditions allowing phagotrophic, mixotrophic, or phototrophic nutrition. The availability of light and bacterial prey led to the differential expression of 42% or 45 +/- 59% of all genes, respectively. Data from strain CCMP1393 were compared to those from a study conducted previously on strain BG-1, and revealed notable differences in carbon and nitrogen metabolism between the 2 congeners under similar environmental conditions. Strain BG-1 utilized bacterial carbon and amino acids through glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid cycle, while downregulating light harvesting and carbon fixation in the Calvin cycle when both light and bacteria were available. In contrast, the upregulation of genes related to photosynthesis, light harvesting, chlorophyll synthesis, and carbon fixation in the presence of light and prey for strain CCMP1393 implied that this species is more phototrophic than strain BG-1, and that phagotrophy may have enhanced phototrophy. Cellular chlorophyll a content was also significantly higher in strain CCMP1393 supplied with bacteria compared to those without prey. Our results thus point to very different physiological strategies for mixotrophic nutrition in these closely related chrysophyte species.

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