4.8 Article

Unusual metabolic diversity of hyperalkaliphilic microbial communities associated with subterranean serpentinization at The Cedars

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 2584-2598

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2017.111

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF-EAR Grant [1024872, 1424646, 1424711]
  2. JSPS [26106004, 16K14647, 15H069907, 26251041, 15K14907]
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1024872, 1424711, 1424646] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K14907, 16K14647, 26106004, 26251041] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water from The Cedars springs that discharge from serpentinized ultramafic rocks feature highly basic (pH=similar to 12), highly reducing (E-h<-550 mV) conditions with low ionic concentrations. These conditions make the springs exceptionally challenging for life. Here, we report the metagenomic data and recovered draft genomes from two different springs, GPS1 and BS5. GPS1, which was fed solely by a deep groundwater source within the serpentinizing system, was dominated by several bacterial taxa from the phyla OD1 ('Parcubacteria') and Chloroflexi. Members of the GPS1 community had, for the most part, the smallest genomes reported for their respective taxa, and encoded only archaeal (A-type) ATP synthases or no ATP synthases at all. Furthermore, none of the members encoded respiration-related genes and some of the members also did not encode key biosynthesis-related genes. In contrast, BS5, fed by shallow water, appears to have a community driven by hydrogen metabolism and was dominated by a diverse group of Proteobacteria similar to those seen in many terrestrial serpentinization sites. Our findings indicated that the harsh ultrabasic geological setting supported unexpectedly diverse microbial metabolic strategies and that the deep-water-fed springs supported a community that was remarkable in its unusual metagenomic and genomic constitution.

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