We’re sorry, but GBIF doesn’t work properly without JavaScript enabled.
Our website has detected that you are using an outdated insecure browser that will prevent you from using the site. We suggest you upgrade to a modern browser.
{{nav.loginGreeting}}
  • Get data
      • Occurrences
      • GBIF API
      • Species
      • Datasets
      • Occurrence snapshots
      • Hosted portals
      • Trends
  • How-to
    • Share data

      • Quick-start guide
      • Dataset classes
      • Data hosting
      • Standards
      • Become a publisher
      • Data quality
      • Data papers
    • Use data

      • Featured data use
      • Citation guidelines
      • GBIF citations
      • Citation widget
  • Tools
    • Publishing

      • IPT
      • Data validator
      • Scientific Collections
      • Suggest a dataset
      • New data model ⭐️
    • Data access and use

      • Hosted portals
      • Data processing
      • Derived datasets
      • rgbif
      • pygbif
      • MAXENT
      • Tools catalogue
    • GBIF labs

      • Species matching
      • Name parser
      • Sequence ID
      • Relative observation trends
      • GBIF data blog
  • Community
    • Network

      • Participant network
      • Nodes
      • Publishers
      • Network contacts
      • Community forum
      • alliance for biodiversity knowledge
    • Volunteers

      • Mentors
      • Ambassadors
      • Translators
      • Citizen scientists
    • Activities

      • Capacity enhancement
      • Programmes & projects
      • Training and learning resources
      • Data Use Club
      • Living Atlases
  • About
    • Inside GBIF

      • What is GBIF?
      • Become a member
      • Governance
      • Implementation plan
      • Work Programme
      • Funders
      • Partnerships
      • Release notes
      • Contacts
    • News & outreach

      • News
      • Newsletters and lists
      • Events
      • Ebbe Nielsen Challenge
      • Graduate Researchers Award
      • Science Review
      • Data use
  • User profile

Metagenomic approach for studying picoeukaryotes in a extreme oligotrophic marginal sea (South Adriatic Sea) during winter mixed conditions

Dataset homepage

Citation

MGnify (2019). Metagenomic approach for studying picoeukaryotes in a extreme oligotrophic marginal sea (South Adriatic Sea) during winter mixed conditions. Sampling event dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/o39yg1 accessed via GBIF.org on 2023-01-28.

Description

This study investigates this smallest plankton fraction (cells ≤ 3µm) in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic perspective considering changes of the community in the photic zone from coastal to open sea during mixed winter conditions. Using high-throughput sequencing of 16S and 18S rRNA genes along with flow-cytometry counts of bacteria, cyanobacteria and photosynthetic picoeukaryotes (PPEs) we described picoplanktonic community in the oligotrophic ecosystem. With pigment and lipid analyses of picoplankton community, we characterized PPEs and detected specific events in microbial loop. Prokaryotic community was dominated by Alphaproteobacteria, mainly SAR11 clade (44.91%), followed by Gammaproteobacteria (Oceanospirillales and Pseudomonadales, 14.96%), Bacteroidetes, mainly Flavobacteriales (13%), Cyanobacteria (Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus, 9.52%), Marinimicrobia, SAR406 clade (7.97%), Deltaproteobacteria (3.83%), Actinobacteria (2.24%) and Chloroflexi (1.90%). Picoeukaryotes, although the drivers of photosynthetic activity in oligotrophic systems, in this study were dominated by heterotrophic counterparts: Syndiniales, parasitic dinoflagellates (79.67%), other Dinophyta (8.7%) and on two depths Collodaria, family Sphaerozoidae (22.1%) and Polycistinea, Spumellarida (5.0%), while total photoautotrophic fraction of picoeukaryotes were represented with Mamiellophyceae, Stramenopiles, photoautotrophic Cryptophyta and some Haptophyta, together not exceeding 5% of total sequences. Heterotrophic bacteria and cyanobacteria, separated into populations of Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus, had abundances up to 7×105; 2.3×104 and 2.5×104 cells mL-1, respectively. Photoautotrophic picoeukaryotes were most abundant at P600-25m with 3×103 cells mL-1. According to pigment composition, the most prevalent phototrophs in picoplankton were Cyanobacteria and green algae.

Sampling Description

Sampling

This study investigates this smallest plankton fraction (cells ≤ 3µm) in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic perspective considering changes of the community in the photic zone from coastal to open sea during mixed winter conditions. Using high-throughput sequencing of 16S and 18S rRNA genes along with flow-cytometry counts of bacteria, cyanobacteria and photosynthetic picoeukaryotes (PPEs) we described picoplanktonic community in the oligotrophic ecosystem. With pigment and lipid analyses of picoplankton community, we characterized PPEs and detected specific events in microbial loop. Prokaryotic community was dominated by Alphaproteobacteria, mainly SAR11 clade (44.91%), followed by Gammaproteobacteria (Oceanospirillales and Pseudomonadales, 14.96%), Bacteroidetes, mainly Flavobacteriales (13%), Cyanobacteria (Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus, 9.52%), Marinimicrobia, SAR406 clade (7.97%), Deltaproteobacteria (3.83%), Actinobacteria (2.24%) and Chloroflexi (1.90%). Picoeukaryotes, although the drivers of photosynthetic activity in oligotrophic systems, in this study were dominated by heterotrophic counterparts: Syndiniales, parasitic dinoflagellates (79.67%), other Dinophyta (8.7%) and on two depths Collodaria, family Sphaerozoidae (22.1%) and Polycistinea, Spumellarida (5.0%), while total photoautotrophic fraction of picoeukaryotes were represented with Mamiellophyceae, Stramenopiles, photoautotrophic Cryptophyta and some Haptophyta, together not exceeding 5% of total sequences. Heterotrophic bacteria and cyanobacteria, separated into populations of Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus, had abundances up to 7×105; 2.3×104 and 2.5×104 cells mL-1, respectively. Photoautotrophic picoeukaryotes were most abundant at P600-25m with 3×103 cells mL-1. According to pigment composition, the most prevalent phototrophs in picoplankton were Cyanobacteria and green algae.

Method steps

  1. Pipeline used: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/metagenomics/pipelines/4.1

Taxonomic Coverages

Geographic Coverages

Bibliographic Citations

Contacts

originator
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Biology Department
metadata author
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Biology Department
administrative point of contact
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Biology Department
What is GBIF? API FAQ Newsletter Privacy Terms and agreements Citation Code of Conduct Acknowledgements
Contact GBIF Secretariat Universitetsparken 15 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø Denmark