4.6 Article

An annual cycle of dimethylsulfoniopropionate-sulfur and leucine assimilating bacterioplankton in the coastal NW Mediterranean

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 2451-2463

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01363.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The contribution of major phylogenetic groups to heterotrophic bacteria assimilating sulfur from dissolved dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) and assimilating leucine was analysed in surface seawaters from Blanes Bay (NW Mediterranean) over an annual study between March 2003 and April 2004. The percentage of bacteria assimilating DMSP-S showed a strong seasonal pattern, with a steady increase from winter (8 +/- 5%) to summer (23 +/- 3%). The same seasonal pattern was observed for the rate of DMSP-S assimilation. The annual average percentage of DMSP-S-assimilating bacteria (16 +/- 8%) was lower than the corresponding percentage of leucine-assimilating cells (35 +/- 16%), suggesting that not all bacteria synthesizing protein incorporated DMSP-S. Smaller differences between both percentages were recorded in summer. Members of the Alphaproteobacteria (Roseobacter and SAR11) and Gammaproteobacteria groups accounted for most of bacterial DMSP-S-assimilating cells over the year. All major bacterial groups showed an increase of the percentage of cells assimilating DMSP-S during summer, and contributed to the increase of the DMSP-S assimilation rate in this period. In these primarily P-limited waters, enrichment with P + DMSP resulted in a stimulation of bacterial heterotrophic production comparable to, or higher than, that with P + glucose in summer, while during the rest of the year P + glucose induced a stronger response. This suggested that DMSP was more important a S and C source for bacteria in the warm stratified season. Overall, our results suggest that DMSP-S assimilation is controlled by the contribution of DMSP to S (and C) sources rather than by the phylogenetic composition of the bacterioplankton.

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