4.6 Article

Thermally adaptive tradeoffs in closely related marine bacterial strains

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 2421-2429

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.12714

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [OCE1322950, OCE 1416665]
  2. NSF
  3. NSF REU Program
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Division Of Ocean Sciences [1322950, 1031064, 1155158] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Ocean Sciences
  7. Directorate For Geosciences [1416665] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Time series studies have shown that some bacterial taxa occur only at specific times of the year while others are ubiquitous in spite of seasonal shifts in environmental variables. Here, we ask if these ubiquitous clades are generalists that grow over a wide range of environmental conditions, or clusters of strain-level environmental specialists. To answer this question, vibrio strains isolated at a coastal time series were phylogenetically and physiologically characterized revealing three dominant strategies within the vibrio: mesophiles, psychrophiles and apparently generalist broad thermal range clades. Thermal performance curves from laboratory growth rate experiments help explain field observations of relative abundances: the mesophilic clade grows optimally at temperatures 16 degrees C higher than the psychrophilic clade. Strains in the broad thermal range clade all have similar optimal growth temperatures but also exhibit temperature-related tradeoffs with faster growth rates for warm temperature strains and broader growth ranges for strains from cool temperatures. Moreover, the mechanisms of thermal adaptation apparently differ based on evolutionary time scales: shifts in the temperature of maximal growth occur between deeply branching clades but thermal performance curve shape changes on shorter time scales. Thus, apparently ubiquitous clades are likely not generalists, but contain subclusters with distinct environmental preferences.

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