4.8 Article

Ecology of marine Bacteroidetes: a comparative genomics approach

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 1026-1037

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2012.169

关键词

glycoside hydrolase; polymer degradation; polymeric organic matter; protease; proteorhodopsin

资金

  1. I3P grant from CSIC
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [CTM2007-63753-C02-01/MAR, CTM2010-11060-E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacteroidetes are commonly assumed to be specialized in degrading high molecular weight (HMW) compounds and to have a preference for growth attached to particles, surfaces or algal cells. The first sequenced genomes of marine Bacteroidetes seemed to confirm this assumption. Many more genomes have been sequenced recently. Here, a comparative analysis of marine Bacteroidetes genomes revealed a life strategy different from those of other important phyla of marine bacterioplankton such as Cyanobacteria and Proteobacteria. Bacteroidetes have many adaptations to grow attached to particles, have the capacity to degrade polymers, including a large number of peptidases, glycoside hydrolases (GHs), glycosyl transferases, adhesion proteins, as well as the genes for gliding motility. Several of the polymer degradation genes are located in close association with genes for TonB-dependent receptors and transducers, suggesting an integrated regulation of adhesion and degradation of polymers. This confirmed the role of this abundant group of marine bacteria as degraders of particulate matter. Marine Bacteroidetes had a significantly larger number of proteases than GHs, while non-marine Bacteroidetes had equal numbers of both. Proteorhodopsin containing Bacteroidetes shared two characteristics: small genome size and a higher number of genes involved in CO2 fixation per Mb. The latter may be important in order to survive when floating freely in the illuminated, but nutrient-poor, ocean surface. The ISME Journal (2013) 7, 1026-1037; doi:10.1038/ismej.2012.169; published online 10 January 2013

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据