Back

A global atlas of subsurface microbiomes reveals phylogenetic novelty, large scale biodiversity gradients, and a marine-terrestrial divide

Ruff, S. E.; Hrabe de Angelis, I. C.; Mullis, M.; Payet, J. P.; Magnabosco, C.; Lloyd, K. G.; Sheik, C.; Steen, A. D.; Shipunova, A.; Morozov, A.; Kiel Reese, B.; Bradley, J. A.; Lemonnier, C.; Schrenk, M. O.; Joye, S. B.; Huber, J. A.; Probst, A. J.; Morrison, H. G.; Sogin, M. L.; Ladau, J.; Colwell, F.

2024-04-29 microbiology
10.1101/2024.04.29.591682 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Subsurface environments constitute one of Earths largest habitats for microbial life, yet differences between surface and subsurface microbiomes and between marine and terrestrial microbiomes remain unclear. We analyzed 478 archaeal and 1054 bacterial amplicon sequence datasets and 147 metagenomes from diverse and globally distributed surface and subsurface environments. Taxonomic analyses show that archaeal and bacterial diversity is similar in marine and terrestrial microbiomes at local to global scales. However, community composition greatly differs between marine and terrestrial microbiomes, suggesting a horizontal phylogenetic divide between sea and land that mirrors patterns in plant and animal diversity. In contrast, community composition overlapped from surface to subsurface environments indicating vertical diversity continua rather than a discrete subsurface biosphere. Diversity of terrestrial microbiomes decreases from surface to subsurface environments. Marine subsurface diversity and phylogenetic novelty rivaled (bacteria) or even exceeded (archaea) that of surface environments, suggesting that the marine subsurface holds a considerable and underestimated fraction of Earths archaeal and bacterial diversity. TeaserSubsurface ecosystems within Earths crust and seafloor harbor diverse and distinct microbiomes featuring many unknown lineages.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.