4.6 Article

Metagenomic Comparison of Two Thiomicrospira Lineages Inhabiting Contrasting Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Environments

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013530

关键词

-

资金

  1. NOAA
  2. NASA Astrobiology Institute through the Carnegie Institution for Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The most widespread bacteria in oxic zones of carbonate chimneys at the serpentinite-hosted Lost City hydrothermal field, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, belong to the Thiomicrospira group of sulfur-oxidizing chemolithoautotrophs. It is unclear why Thiomicrospira-like organisms thrive in these chimneys considering that Lost City hydrothermal fluids are notably lacking in hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here we describe metagenomic sequences obtained from a Lost City carbonate chimney that are highly similar to the genome of Thiomicrospira crunogena XCL-2, an isolate from a basalt-hosted hydrothermal vent in the Pacific Ocean. Even though T. crunogena and Lost City Thiomicrospira inhabit different types of hydrothermal systems in different oceans, their genomic contents are highly similar. For example, sequences encoding the sulfur oxidation and carbon fixation pathways (including a carbon concentration mechanism) of T. crunogena are also present in the Lost City metagenome. Comparative genomic analyses also revealed substantial genomic changes that must have occurred since the divergence of the two lineages, including large genomic rearrangements, gene fusion events, a prophage insertion, and transposase activity. Conclusions/Significance: Our results show significant genomic similarity between Thiomicrospira organisms inhabiting different kinds of hydrothermal systems in different oceans, suggesting that these organisms are widespread and highly adaptable. These data also indicate genomic processes potentially associated with the adaptation of these lineages into strikingly different habitats.

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

4.6
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