4.5 Article

Genomic Diversity of Deep Ecotype Alteromonas macleodii Isolates: Evidence for Pan-Mediterranean Clonal Frames

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 1220-1232

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evt089

关键词

Alteromonas macleodii; SNPs; microevolution; recombination; horizontal gene transfer

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [BIO2008-02444, CDS2009-00006, CGL2009-12651-C02-01]
  2. Generalitat Valenciana [PROMETEO/2010/089, ACOMP/2009/155]
  3. European Community (EC) [FP7-KBBE-2012-6-311975]
  4. FEDER funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have compared genomes of Alteromonas macleodii deep ecotype isolates from two deep Mediterranean sites and two surface samples from the Aegean and the English Channel. A total of nine different genomes were analyzed. They belong to five clonal frames (CFs) that differ among them by approximately 30,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) over their core genomes. Two of the CFs contain three strains each with nearly identical genomes (similar to 100 SNPs over the core genome). One of the CFs had representatives that were isolated from samples taken more than 1,000 km away, 2,500 m deeper, and 5 years apart. These data mark the longest proven persistence of a CF in nature (outside of clinical settings). We have found evidence for frequent recombination events between or within CFs and even with the distantly related A. macleodii surface ecotype. The different CFs had different flexible genomic islands. They can be classified into two groups; one type is additive, that is, containing different numbers of gene cassettes, and is very variable in short time periods (they often varied even within a single CF). The other type was more stable and produced the complete replacement of a genomic fragment by another with different genes. Although this type was more conserved within each CF, we found examples of recombination among distantly related CFs including English Channel and Mediterranean isolates.

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

4.5
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