Lombard, F. et al. Consistent quantitative observations of planktonic ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 196. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00196 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sieracki, M. E., et al. Optical plankton imaging and analysis systems for ocean observation. Proceedings of OceanObs’09: Sustained Ocean Observations and Information for Society, 878–885 (2010). https://doi.org/10.5270/OceanObs09.cwp.81.
Irisson, J.-O., Ayata, S.-D., Lindsay, D. J., Karp-Boss, L. & Stemmann, L. Machine learning for the study of plankton and marine snow from images. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 14(1), 277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-041921-013023 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mars Brisbin, M., Brunner, O. D., Grossmann, M. M. & Mitarai, S. Paired high-throughput, in situ imaging and high-throughput sequencing illuminate acantharian abundance and vertical distribution. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65(12), 2953–2965. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11567 (2020).
Google Scholar
Benfield, M. et al. RAPID: Research on automated plankton identification. Oceanography 20(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2007.63 (2007).
Google Scholar
Colin, S. et al. Quantitative 3D-imaging for cell biology and ecology of environmental microbial eukaryotes. Elife 6, e26066. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26066 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kim, M. K. Principles and techniques of digital holographic microscopy. J. Photonics Energy. 1, 018005. https://doi.org/10.1117/6.0000006 (2010).
Google Scholar
Tahara, T., Quan, X., Otani, R., Takaki, Y. & Matoba, O. Digital holography and its multidimensional imaging applications: A review. Microscopy 67(2), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmicro/dfy007 (2018).
Google Scholar
Jericho, S. K., Garcia-Sucerquia, J. F. W., Jericho, M. H. & Kreuzer, H. J. Submersible digital in-line holographic microscope. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77(4), 043706. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2193827 (2006).
Google Scholar
Bochdansky, A. B., Jericho, M. H. & Herndl, G. J. Development and deployment of a point-source digital inline holographic microscope for the study of plankton and particlesto a depth of 6000 m. Limnol. Oceanogr: Methods 11, 28–40 (2013).
Google Scholar
Yourassowsky, C. & Dubois, F. High throughput holographic imaging-in-flow for the analysis of a wide plankton size range. Opt. Express 22(6), 6661. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.006661 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jericho, M. H. & Kreuzer, H. J. Point source digital in-line holographic microscopy. In Coherent Light Microscopy (eds Ferraro, P. et al.) 3–30 (Springer, 2011).
Google Scholar
Kanka, M., Riesenberg, R. & Kreuzer, H. J. Reconstruction of high-resolution holographic microscopic images. Opt. Lett. 34(8), 1162. https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.34.001162 (2009).
Google Scholar
Jericho, M. H., Kreuzer, H. J., Kanka, M. & Riesenberg, R. Quantitative phase and refractive index measurements with point-source digital in-line holographic microscopy. Appl. Opt. 51(10), 1503. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.51.001503 (2012).
Google Scholar
Wu, Y. & Ozcan, A. Lensless digital holographic microscopy and its applications in biomedicine and environmental monitoring. Methods 136, 4–16 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sun, H. et al. digital holography for studies of marine plankton. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A. 366, 1789–1806 (2008).
Google Scholar
Bianco, V. et al. microplastic identification via holographic imaging and machine learning. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2(2), 1900153. https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.201900153 (2020).
Google Scholar
Guo, B. et al. Automated plankton classification from holographic imagery with deep convolutional neural networks. Limnol. Oceanogr. 19(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10402 (2021).
Google Scholar
Nayak, A. R., Malkiel, E., McFarland, M. N., Twardowski, M. S. & Sullivan, J. M. A Review of holography in the aquatic sciences: In situ characterization of particles, plankton, and small scale biophysical interactions. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 572147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.572147 (2021).
Google Scholar
Di Bella, J. M., Bao, Y., Gloor, G. B., Burton, J. P. & Reid, G. High throughput sequencing methods and analysis for microbiome research. J. Microbiol. Methods 95(3), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2013.08.011 (2013).
Google Scholar
Stoeck, T. et al. Multiple marker parallel tag environmental DNA sequencing reveals a highly complex eukaryotic community in marine anoxic water. Mol. Ecol. 19, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04480.x (2010).
Google Scholar
de Vargas, C. et al. Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean. Science 348(6237), 1261605–1261605. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261605 (2015).
Google Scholar
Lima-Mendez, G. et al. Determinants of community structure in the global plankton interactome. Science 348(6237), 1262073–1262073. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1262073 (2015).
Google Scholar
Santoferrara, L. et al. Perspectives from ten years of protist studies by high-throughput metabarcoding. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 67(5), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12813 (2020).
Google Scholar
Eickbush, T. H. & Eickbush, D. G. Finely orchestrated movements: evolution of the ribosomal RNA genes. Genetics 175(2), 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.071399 (2007).
Google Scholar
Kirkham, A. R. et al. Basin-scale distribution patterns of photosynthetic picoeukaryotes along an Atlantic Meridional Transect: Marine photosynthetic picoeukaryote community structure. Environ. Microbiol. 13(4), 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02403.x (2011).
Google Scholar
Decelle, J. et al. PhytoREF: A reference database of the plastidial 16S rRNA gene of photosynthetic eukaryotes with curated taxonomy. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15(6), 1435–1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12401 (2015).
Google Scholar
Leray, M. & Knowlton, N. Censusing marine eukaryotic diversity in the twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 371(1702), 20150331. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0331 (2016).
Google Scholar
Cowart, D. A. et al. Metabarcoding is powerful yet still blind: A comparative analysis of morphological and molecular surveys of seagrass communities. PLoS ONE 10(2), e0117562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117562 (2015).
Google Scholar
Stefanni, S. et al. Multi-marker metabarcoding approach to study mesozooplankton at basin scale. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 12085. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30157-7 (2018).
Google Scholar
Pappalardo, P. et al. The role of taxonomic expertise in interpretation of metabarcoding studies. ICES J. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab082 (2021).
Google Scholar
Gloor, G. B., Macklaim, J. M., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. & Egozcue, J. J. Microbiome datasets are compositional: And this is not optional. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2224. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02224 (2017).
Google Scholar
Zhu, F., Massana, R., Not, F., Marie, D. & Vaulot, D. Mapping of picoeucaryotes in marine ecosystems with quantitative PCR of the 18S rRNA gene. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 52(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsec.2004.10.006 (2005).
Google Scholar
Sargent, E. C. et al. Evidence for polyploidy in the globally important diazotroph Trichodesmium. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 363(21), 244. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnw244 (2016).
Google Scholar
Gong, W. & Marchetti, A. Estimation of 18S gene copy number in marine eukaryotic plankton using a next-generation sequencing approach. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 219. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00219 (2019).
Google Scholar
Biard, T. et al. Biogeography and diversity of collodaria (radiolaria) in the global ocean. ISME J. 11, 1331–1344 (2017).
Google Scholar
Callahan, B. J., McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. P. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 11(12), 2639–2643. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.119 (2017).
Google Scholar
Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. The North Atlantic aerosol and marine ecosystem study (NAAMES): Science motive and mission overview. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00122 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bolaños, L. M. et al. Seasonality of the microbial community composition in the North Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 624164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.624164 (2021).
Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. The statistical analysis of compositional data. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 44(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1982.tb01195.x (1982).
Google Scholar
Decelle, J. & Not, F. Acantharia. ELS, 1–10 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0002102.pub2.
Yu, L., An, Y. & Cai, L. Numerical reconstruction of digital holograms with variable viewing angles. Opt. Express 10(22), 1250. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.10.001250 (2002).
Google Scholar
Della Penna, A. & Gaube, P. Overview of (sub)mesoscale Ocean dynamics for the NAAMES field program. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 384. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00384 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sverdrup, H. U. Oceanography for Meteorologists (Prentice Hall, 1942).
Google Scholar
Mahadevan, A. The impact of submesoscale physics on primary productivity of plankton. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 8(1), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010814-015912 (2016).
Google Scholar
Fratantoni, P. S. & Pickart, R. S. The Western North Atlantic shelfbreak current system in summer. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 37(10), 2509–2533. https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO3123.1 (2007).
Google Scholar
Bolaños, L. M. et al. Small phytoplankton dominate western North Atlantic biomass. ISME J. 14(7), 1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-0636-0 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kramer, S. J., Siegel, D. A. & Graff, J. R. Phytoplankton community composition determined from co-variability among phytoplankton pigments from the NAAMES field campaign. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 215. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00215 (2020).
Google Scholar
Faure, E. et al. Mixotrophic protists display contrasted biogeographies in the global ocean. ISME J. 13(4), 1072–1083. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0340-5 (2019).
Google Scholar
Fratantoni, P. S. & McCartney, M. S. Freshwater export from the labrador current to the North Atlantic Current at the tail of the grand banks of Newfoundland. Deep Sea Res. I. 57(2), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2009.11.006 (2010).
Google Scholar
Torti, A., Lever, M. A. & Jørgensen, B. B. Origin, dynamics, and implications of extracellular DNA pools in marine sediments. Mar. Genom. 24, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margen.2015.08.007 (2015).
Google Scholar
Jian, C., Salonen, A. & Korpela, K. Commentary: How to count our microbes? The effect of different quantitative microbiome profiling approaches. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 11, 627910. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.627910 (2021).
Google Scholar
Djurhuus, A. et al. Evaluation of marine zooplankton community structure through environmental DNA metabarcoding: Metabarcoding zooplankton from eDNA. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 16(4), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10237 (2018).
Google Scholar
del Campo, J. et al. The others: Our biased perspective of eukaryotic genomes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29(5), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.03.006 (2014).
Google Scholar
Karst, S. M. et al. Retrieval of a million high-quality, full-length microbial 16S and 18S rRNA gene sequences without primer bias. Nat. Biotech. 36(2), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4045 (2018).
Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. et al. Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis. Nat. Commun. 10(1), 5029. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13036-1 (2019).
Google Scholar
Callahan, B. J. et al. High-throughput amplicon sequencing of the full-length 16S rRNA gene with single-nucleotide resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 47(18), e103–e103. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz569 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lin, Y., Gifford, S., Ducklow, H., Schofield, O. & Cassar, N. Towards quantitative microbiome community profiling using internal standards. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85(5), 18. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02634-18 (2019).
Google Scholar
Vogt, M. et al. Global marine plankton functional type biomass distributions: Phaeocystis spp. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5, 405–443. https://doi.org/10.5194/essdd-5-405-2012 (2012).
Google Scholar
MacNeil, L., Missan, S., Luo, J., Trappenberg, T. & LaRoche, J. Plankton classification with high-throughput submersible holographic microscopy and transfer learning. BMC Ecol. Evol. 21(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-021-01839-0 (2021).
Google Scholar
Pan, J., del Campo, J. & Keeling, P. J. Reference tree and environmental sequence diversity of labyrinthulomycetes. J. Eukary. Microbiol. 64(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12342 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bochdansky, A. B., Clouse, M. A. & Herndl, G. J. Eukaryotic microbes, principally fungi and labyrinthulomycetes, dominate biomass on bathypelagic marine snow. ISME J. 11(2), 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.113 (2017).
Google Scholar
Xie, N., Hunt, D. E., Johnson, Z. I., He, Y. & Wang, G. Annual partitioning patterns of Labyrinthulomycetes protists reveal their multifaceted role in marine microbial food webs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01652-20 (2021).
Google Scholar
Walcutt, N. L. et al. Assessment of holographic microscopy for quantifying marine particle size and concentration. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 3, 10379. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10379 (2020).
Google Scholar
Axler, K. et al. Fine-scale larval fish distributions and predator-prey dynamics in a coastal river-dominated ecosystem. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 650, 37–61. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13397 (2020).
Google Scholar
Trudnowska, E. et al. Marine snow morphology illuminates the evolution of phytoplankton blooms and determines their subsequent vertical export. Nat. Commun. 12(1), 2816. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22994-4 (2021).
Google Scholar
González, P. et al. Automatic plankton quantification using deep features. J. Plankton Res. 41(4), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbz023 (2019).
Google Scholar
Briseño-Avena, C. et al. Three-dimensional cross-shelf zooplankton distributions off the Central Oregon Coast during anomalous oceanographic conditions. Prog. Oceanogr. 188, 102436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2020.102436 (2020).
Google Scholar
Biard, T. et al. In situ imaging reveals the biomass of giant protists in the global ocean. Nature 532, 504–507 (2016).
Google Scholar
Orenstein, E. C. et al. The scripps plankton camera system: A framework and platform for in situ microscopy. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 18(11), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10394 (2020).
Google Scholar
Fowler, B. L. et al. Dynamics and functional diversity of the smallest phytoplankton on the Northeast US Shelf. PNAS 117(22), 12215–12221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918439117 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tréguer, P. et al. Influence of diatom diversity on the ocean biological carbon pump. Nat. Geosci. 11(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0028-x (2018).
Google Scholar
Ryabov, A. et al. Shape matters: The relationship between cell geometry and diversity in phytoplankton. Ecol. Lett. 24(4), 847–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13680 (2021).
Google Scholar
Keeling, P. J. & del Campo, J. marine protists are not just big bacteria. Curr. Biol. 27(11), R541–R549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.03.075 (2017).
Google Scholar
Sgubin, G., Swingedouw, D., Drijfhout, S., Mary, Y. & Bennabi, A. Abrupt cooling over the North Atlantic in modern climate models. Nat. Commun. 8(1), 14375. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14375 (2017).
Google Scholar
Desbruyères, D., Chafik, L. & Maze, G. A shift in the ocean circulation has warmed the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean since 2016. Commun. Earth Environ. 2(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00120-y (2021).
Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. R. et al. Atlantic zone monitoring program protocol. Can. Tech. Rep. Hydrogr. Ocean Sci. 223, 1–23 (2002).
Li, W. K. W., Glen Harrison, W. & Head, E. J. H. Coherent assembly of phytoplankton communities in diverse temperate ocean ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B. 273(1596), 1953–1960. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3529 (2006).
Google Scholar
Richardson, P. L. Florida current, gulf stream, and labrador current. In Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences (ed. Steele, J. H.) 1054–1064 (Academic Press, 2001). https://doi.org/10.1006/rwos.2001.0357.
Google Scholar
Henson, S. A., Dunne, J. P. & Sarmiento, J. L. Decadal variability in North Atlantic phytoplankton blooms. J. Geophys. Res. 114(C4), C04013. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005139 (2009).
Google Scholar
Han, G., Lu, Z., Wang, Z., Helbig, J. & Chen, N. Seasonal variability of the labrador current and shelf circulation off Newfoundland. J. Geophys. Res. 113, 10. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004376 (2008).
Google Scholar
Pante, E. & Simon-Bouhet, B. marmap: A package for importing, plotting and analyzing bathymetric and topographic data in R. PLoS ONE 8(9), e73051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073051 (2013).
Google Scholar
Kelley, D. “The Oce Package” In Oceanographic Analysis with R 91–101 (Springer, 2018).
Google Scholar
Oksanen, J., et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7 (2020). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
Tomas, C. R. Identifying Marine Phytoplankton (Academic Press Inc, 1997).
Comeau, A. M., Li, W. K. W., Tremblay, J. -É., Carmack, E. C. & Lovejoy, C. Arctic ocean microbial community structure before and after the 2007 record sea ice minimum. PLoS ONE 6(11), e27492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027492 (2011).
Google Scholar
Parada, A. E., Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Every base matters: Assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples: Primers for marine microbiome studies. Environ. Microbiol. 18(5), 1403–1414. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13023 (2016).
Google Scholar
Walters, W. et al. Improved bacterial 16S rRNA gene (V4 and V4–5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. MSystems https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00009-15 (2016).
Google Scholar
Comeau, A. M., Douglas, G. M. & Langille, M. G. I. Microbiome helper: A custom and streamlined workflow for microbiome research. MSystems 2(1), e00127-e216. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00127-16 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotech. 37(8), 852–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9 (2019).
Google Scholar
Amir, A. et al. Deblur rapidly resolves single-nucleotide community sequence patterns. MSystems 2(2), e00191-e216. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00191-16 (2017).
Google Scholar
Guillou, L. et al. The protist ribosomal reference database (PR2): A catalog of unicellular eukaryote small sub-unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 41(D1), D597–D604. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1160 (2013).
Google Scholar
Mohsen, A., Park, J., Chen, Y.-A., Kawashima, H. & Mizuguchi, K. Impact of quality trimming on the efficiency of reads joining and diversity analysis of Illumina paired-end reads in the context of QIIME1 and QIIME2 microbiome analysis frameworks. BMC Bioinform. 20(1), 581. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3187-5 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bokulich, N. A. et al. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with QIIME 2’s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome 6(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0470-z (2018).
Google Scholar
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41(D1), D590–D596. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219 (2012).
Google Scholar
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021). https://www.R-project.org/.
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8(4), e61217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 (2013).
Google Scholar
Willis, A. & Bunge, J. Estimating diversity via frequency ratios: estimating diversity via ratios. Biometrics 71(4), 1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12332 (2015).
Google Scholar
Willis, A. D. Rarefaction, alpha diversity, and statistics. Front. Microbiol. 10, 2407. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02407 (2019).
Google Scholar
Quinn, T. P. et al. A field guide for the compositional analysis of any-omics data. GigaScience 8(9), 107. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz107 (2019).
Google Scholar
Silverman, J. D., Roche, K., Mukherjee, S. & David, L. A. Naught all zeros in sequence count data are the same. Comput. Struct. Biotech. J. 18, 2789–2798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2020.09.014 (2020).
Google Scholar
Anderson, M. J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral. Ecol. 26, 32–46 (2001).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
