4.3 Article

Differential responses of Prochlorococcus and SAR11-dominated bacterioplankton groups to atmospheric dust inputs in the tropical Northeast Atlantic Ocean

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 306, 期 1, 页码 82-89

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01940.x

关键词

Bacteria; flow cytometric sorting; Aeolian; Saharan sand

资金

  1. NERC UK SOLAS
  2. SOLAS NERC-tied studentship
  3. NERC [noc010009] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [noc010009, NE/C001931/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The metabolic responses of indigenous dominant bacterioplankton populations to additions of dust were examined in the tropical northeast Atlantic. Subsurface seawater samples were treated with dust, added directly or indirectly as a 'leachate' after its rapid dissolution in deionized water. Samples were incubated at ambient temperature and light for up to 24 h and microbial metabolic responses were assessed by 35S-methionine (35S-Met) uptake. Prochlorococcus and low nucleic acid (LNA) cells were sorted by flow cytometry to determine their group-specific responses. Sorted cells were also phylogenetically affiliated using FISH. The high-light-adapted ecotype II dominated the Prochlorococcus group and 73 +/- 14% of LNA prokaryotes belonged to the SAR11 clade of Alphaproteobacteria. Both Prochlorococcus and LNA cells were metabolically impaired by the addition of dust (40 +/- 28% and 37 +/- 22% decrease in 35S-Met uptake compared with controls, respectively). However, LNA bacterioplankton showed minor positive responses to dust leachate additions (7 +/- 4% increase in 35S-Met uptake), while the metabolic activity of Prochlorococcus cells decreased in the presence of dust leachate by 16 +/- 11%. Thus, dust dissolution in situ appears to be more deleterious to Prochlorococcus than SAR11-dominated LNA bacterioplankton and hence could initiate a compositional shift in the indigenous 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

4.3
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