Back

Year-round dynamics of amplicon sequence variant communities differ among eukaryotes, Mimiviridae, and prokaryotes in a coastal ecosystem

Prodinger, F.; Endo, H.; Takano, Y.; Li, Y.; Tominaga, K.; Isozaki, T.; Blanc-Mathieu, R.; Gotoh, Y.; Tetsuya, H.; Taniguchi, E.; Nagasaki, K.; Yoshida, T.; Ogata, H.

2021-02-24 microbiology
10.1101/2021.02.02.429489 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Coastal seawater is the habitat of different microbial communities. These communities are affected by seasonal environmental changes and fluctuating nutrient availability, as well as competitive and cooperative interspecific interactions. In this work, we investigated the seasonal dynamics of communities of eukaryotes, a major group of double-stranded DNA viruses infecting eukaryotes (i.e. Mimiviridae), as well as prokaryotes in the Uranouchi Inlet, Kochi, Japan. We performed metabarcoding using ribosomal RNA genes and the Mimiviridae polB gene as marker genes in 43 seawater samples collected during 20 months. Communities characterized by the compositions of amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) showed synchronic seasonal cycles for eukaryotes, Mimiviridae, and prokaryotes. However, the community dynamics showed intriguing differences in several aspects such as the recovery rate after a year. We further show that the differences in the community dynamics can be explained by differences in the recurrence/persistence levels of individual ASVs among eukaryotes, Mimiviridae, and prokaryotes. Mimiviridae ASVs were less persistent than eukaryotic ASVs, and prokaryotic ASVs were the most persistent. We argue that the differences in the specificity of interactions (i.e. virus-eukaryote vs prokaryote-eukaryote) as well as the survival strategies are at the origin of the distinct community dynamics among eukaryotes, Mimiviridae, and prokaryotes. One sentence summaryA one year observation of coastal microbial communities revealed similar but different community dynamics for eukaryotes, a group of large viruses, and prokaryotes.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.