Broad phylogenetic and functional diversity among mixotrophic consumers of Prochlorococcus
Isolation and cultivationIn total, 39 mixotrophic flagellates were investigated (Table 1). Thirty-three isolates were enriched and isolated from euphotic zone samples at Station ALOHA (22° 45′ N, 158° 00′ W) in February and May 2019. To select for mixotrophic grazers of Prochlorococcus, whole seawater was amended with K medium [28] (1/20 final concentration), and live Procholorococcus (MIT9301) was added as prey (~5 × 106 cells mL−1 final concentration). Enriched seawater samples were incubated under ~70 µmol photons m−2 s−1 irradiance on a 12 h:12 h light:dark cycle and monitored by microscopy daily up to five days. Each day, samples were serially diluted to extinction (9 dilution steps, 12 replicates per dilution) in 96-well plates in nutrient-reduced K medium (1/20 concentration) with a constant background of Prochlorococcus cells. Wells at the highest dilution showing growth of putative grazers were subjected to 3–6 further rounds of dilution to extinction. Four additional mixotrophs were isolated in full K medium using water from earlier cruises, and two (dictyochophyte strains UHM3021 described in [24] and UHM3050) were enriched in K minus nitrogen medium (K-N) without Prochlorococcus enrichment. All isolates were rendered unialgal, but not axenic, and maintained at 24 °C in K-N medium (~0.2 µM N) amended with Prochlorococcus prey, under the same light conditions as above. Dense Prochlorococcus cells grown in Pro99 medium [29], were harvested and concentrated through gentle centrifugation at 2000 RCF for 5 minutes and resuspended in fresh K-N medium to minimize nutrient carryover. To ensure their long-term accessibility, the isolates used in this study are being transferred to the National Center for Marine Algae and Microbiota at the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Science, East Boothbay, ME, USA (ncma.bigelow.org).Table 1 Mixotrophic flagellates investigated in this study.Full size table18S rRNA gene sequencing and phylogenetic analysisCells were harvested by centrifuging 25–50 mL dense cultures at 3000 RCF for 10 min at 4 °C. Genomic DNA was extracted from the pellets using the ZymoBIOMICS DNA Kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA, USA). A near-full-length section of the eukaryotic small-subunit ribosomal RNA (18S rRNA) gene was amplified by PCR with the Roche Expand High Fidelity PCR System (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) using either forward primer 5′-ACCTGGTTGATCCTGCCAG-3′ and reverse primer 5′-TGATCCTTCYGCAGGTTCAC-3′ [30], or Euk63F 5′-ACGCTTGTCTCAAAGATTA-3 and Euk1818R 5′-ACGGAAACCTTGTTACGA-3′ [31]. Amplicons were purified using spin columns (DNA Clean & Concentrator-25; Zymo Research, Irvine, CA, USA) and sequenced (Sanger) using the same PCR amplification primers and an additional reverse primer 1174R, 5′-CCCGTGTTGAGTCAAA-3′ [32], when necessary to connect two ends. For phylogenetic analyses, similar sequences were retrieved from the PR2 database [33] based on BLAST similarity, and two environmental homologs (GenBank Acc. FJ537342 and FJ537336) were retrieved from NCBI GenBank for the undescribed haptophyte taxon, which was not affiliated with any reference sequence from the PR2 database. Sequence alignments including 39 isolates, 29 reference and 2 outgroup taxa were created with MAFFT v7.450 using the G-INS-i algorithm [34] in Geneious R11.1.5 (http://www.geneious.com) [35]. Terminal sites that lacked data for any of the sequences were trimmed and any sites with greater than 25% gaps were removed from the alignment, which generated a total sequence length of 1617 bases. Phylogenetic analysis was performed using MrBayes v3.2.6 in Geneious R11.1.5 [36] with two runs of four chains for 1,000,000 generations, subsampling every 200 generations with burn-in length 100,000, under the GTR substitution model. The Bayesian majority consensus tree was further edited within iTOL v5 [37]. All 18 S rRNA gene sequences were deposited in GenBank with accession numbers MZ611704–MZ611740; MN615710–MN615711.Microscopic observationThe average diameter of flagellates in the exponential growth phase (n = 20 cells per strain) was measured by transmitted light microscopy using image analysis software (NIS-Elements AR, Nikon, Minato City, Tokyo, Japan) calibrated with a stage micrometer. Equivalent spherical diameter (ESD) and biovolumes were calculated assuming spherical cells. Chloroplasts were visualized by autofluorescence under epifluorescence microscopy. An average ESD of 0.64 µm was used for Prochlorococcus prey [24].Visual evidence of phagocytosis was obtained by adding fluorescent beads (0.5 μm YG Fluoresbrite Microspheres; Polysciences) to each culture. Samples post incubation (~2 h) were fixed with an equal volume of 4% ice-cold glutaraldehyde, and subsamples (20 µL) were mounted on a glass slide under a coverslip. Paired images captured using epifluorescence and transmitted light microscopy (Olympus BX51 with Leica DFC 7000 T color digital camera) were overlain to identify cells with ingested beads.Grazing experimentsLong-term grazing experiments were conducted for all 39 grazers, and 31 were used to quantify grazing rates based on rates of disappearance of Prochlorococcus cells, which persist but do not readily grow in K-N medium [24]. Rates were not calculated for eight isolates (seven Florenciella and one DictyX) because they were sampled at a lower frequency. Fifteen isolates representing all genera (or approximately genus-level clades) were examined in more detail by replicating grazing experiments two times (marked in bold in Supplementary Table S1), while the remaining sixteen isolates were tested once to survey within- and across- genus variation. Prior to the experiments, all grazer cultures were maintained/acclimated in the experimental medium (K-N with prey). Experiments were initialized by inoculating late-exponential-phase grazers into fresh K-N medium at a final concentration of ~103 flagellates mL−1, and adding live, unstained prey at a final concentration of 2–3 × 106 Prochlorococcus mL−1. Grazers were incubated for 3–8 days in total, depending on how fast prey were ingested. To minimize carryover of dissolved nutrients and prey growth in the grazing experiments, Prochlorococcus were grown to stationary phase in Pro99 medium, then pelleted (2000 RCF for 3–5 min) and resuspended in fresh K-N medium prior to addition to control and experimental cultures. Control cultures of grazer without added prey and prey without grazers were included during each grazing experiment to confirm that grazer growth and prey removal were attributable to grazing. Cell concentrations of prey and grazers were measured every 12–24 h by flow cytometry of glutaraldehyde-fixed samples at final concentration of 0.5% (Attune NxT; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA, and CytoFLEX; Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Populations were distinguished based on light scatter and pigment autofluorescence and occasionally confirmed with DNA fluorescence (stained post-sampling with DNA stain SYBR Green I). Ambient bacteria concentrations, monitored using DNA stains, were ≤10% of the added Prochlorococcus at the start and during most periods of all grazing experiments.Grazing rates and biovolume conversion efficiencyWe calculated ingestion rates, I (prey grazer−1 h−1) for each grazer as:$$I = frac{{P_t – P_{t + 1}}}{{G_{{{{{rm{avg}}}}}}(T_{t + 1} – T_t)}}$$
(1)
where (P_t) and (P_{t + 1}) are the prey abundance at sampling interval t and t + 1 (cells mL−1), Gavg is the arithmetic mean grazer abundance (cells mL−1) over the time interval, and ((T_{t + 1} – T_t)) is the time (h) between two sampling intervals. Clearance rates (C, nL grazer−1 h−1) were calculated by dividing the ingestion rate by average prey concentration over the same interval, and specific clearance rate (body volume grazer−1 h−1) was calculated by dividing the clearance rate by cellular biovolume (µm3) of each grazer. Equation (1) uses a linear approximation of prey and grazer trajectories over the sampling interval, which was appropriate for our data where change could be relatively linear, concave-up, or concave-down. Other commonly used ingestion rate calculations assume exponential prey decline [38] and/or exponential grazer growth [39].Clearance rates over time in each experiment were assessed visually to obtain a representative series of rates that minimized potential influence of modest prey growth/decline observed in control cultures (Supplementary Fig. S1), as well as potential slowing of ingestion as the grazer neared carrying capacity or depleted prey to a low concentration. For each experiment a contiguous set of relatively constant rates were used to calculate a mean clearance rate. This assessment sometimes excluded the first 12–24 h, but not when removal rates were particularly fast. Intervals when the grazer neared carrying capacity were also often excluded, if grazing rates slowed down. To assess whether clearance rates increased as prey were depleted we plotted clearance rate and ingestion rate as a function of prey concentration (Supplementary Figs. S2 and S3). In general, there was no relationship between clearance rate and prey concentration, and ingestion increased linearly with prey concentration. These patterns imply that the prey concentrations in this experiment did not saturate the ingestion rates of these grazers. Under non-saturating prey concentrations the average clearance rate over an experiment should be a good estimate of the maximum clearance rate (Cmax). Consistent with this interpretation, functional responses fit to these experiments yielded Cmax estimates that were similar to the reported average clearance rates. Because these experiments were not designed with a sufficient range of prey density to esimate functional responses, we do not report the Cmax estimates, but we note here that our reported average clearance rates may be useful as approximate Cmax numbers in future work.Six grazers representing three classes (three dictyochophytes, two haptophytes, and one chrysophyte) were further investigated to determine functional grazing responses using a wide range of initial prey densities (105–107 cells mL−1). Functional responses were modeled using the Holling type II curve, (I = frac{{I_{{{{{rm{max}}}}}}P}}{{P + frac{{I_{{{{{rm{max}}}}}}}}{{C_{{{{{rm{max}}}}}}}}}}), where I is the ingestion rate over a sampling interval (Eq. 1), Imax is the maximum ingestion rate, Cmax is the maximum clearance rate and P is the arithmetic mean prey density between two sampling points. This curve was fit to ingestion rate data using maximum likelihood with R package bbmle [40].For 31 isolates we calculated the amount of grazer biovolume created per prey biovolume consumed, using data from the same grazing experiments used to calculate grazing rates. It was calculated based on the following formula:$$E = frac{{(F_{{{{{rm{f}}}}}} – F_{{{{{rm{i}}}}}})}}{{(P_{{{{{rm{i}}}}}} – P_{{{{{rm{f}}}}}})}}frac{{B_{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}}{{B_{{{{{rm{p}}}}}}}}$$
(2)
where Ff and Fi are the final and initial flagellate concentrations, Pi and Pf are initial and final prey concentrations in each culture, and BF and BP are the cellular biovolume of prey and grazer. We refer to the quantity E as the biovolume conversion efficiency, and we use it as an indicator of physiological differences among diverse mixotrophs. Note that biovolume conversion efficiency can be greater than 1, if prey have greater nutrient:biovolume than the grazer.Quantitative PCRReal-time, quantitative PCR (qPCR) was performed to quantify the 18S rRNA gene abundances of representative mixotroph groups discriminated at approximately the genus level, including Florenciella, Rhizochromulina and another undescribed clade within the class Dictyochophyceae; Chrysochromulina and another undescribed clade within the division Haptophyta; clade H in the class Chrysophyceae; and Triparma eleuthera and Triparma mediterranea in the class Bolidophyceae. Primers (Supplementary Table S2) were designed to target a short region (95–176 bases) of the 18S rRNA gene and meet basic criteria (≤2 °C difference in melting temperature between members of a pair, %G + C content between 45 and 65%, ≤1 degenerate position per primer, no predicted primer dimers). Sequences considered targets for a given primer set had ≤1 mismatch across both primers, which included all or most known members within the corresponding targeted clade. Members in the nearest non-targeted clade had ≥3 mismatches distributed across both primers. Efficiency and specificity of the synthesized primers (IDT Inc., Coralville, IA, USA) was tested by ensuring there was specific amplification (qPCR followed by melting curve analysis and gel electrophoresis) when using DNA from cultures within the targeted group and no amplification when using DNA from cultures close to, but outside of the targeted group (Supplementary Table S3). Empirical observations of amplification success using control cultures were used to infer whether species known only by environmental sequences were likely to amplify with a given primer set (Supplementary Fig. S4).In situ gene abundances were quantified in water samples collected from Station ALOHA at 5, 25, 45, 75, 100, 125, 150, and 175 m, during HOT cruise numbers 259 (Jan), 262 (Apr), 264 (Jul), and 266 (Oct) of 2014. Seawater (ca. 2 L) was filtered through 0.02 μm pore-size, aluminum oxide filters (Whatman Anotop, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) and stored at −80 °C. Genomic DNA of both grazer cultures and environmental samples was extracted (MasterPure Complete DNA and RNA Purification Kit; Epicentre) as described elsewhere [41]. Four replicated PCR reactions (10 μL) were carried out for each sample except for Triparma (duplicates) and consisted of 5 μl of 2× PowerTrack SYBR Green Master Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA), 10 ng environmental DNA, 500 nM of each primer, and nuclease-free water. Reactions were run on an Eppendorf Mastercycler epgradient S realplex2 real-time PCR instrument. Each run contained fresh serial dilutions (1–6 log gene copies) of target-specific, 750-bp synthetic standards (gBlocks, IDT) prepared in triplicate. The cycling program included an initial denaturation step of 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 5 s and 55 °C for 30 s. Specificity of amplification was checked with a melting curve run immediately after the PCR program and occasionally, by gel electrophoresis. Amplification efficiencies ranged from 95% to 106% for all the primers.To convert gene copies to cell numbers, 18S rRNA gene copy number per cell−1 was determined for representative isolates in the seven targeted genera/clades. Known quantities of cultured cells (106–107 cells) from each isolate with 2–8 replicates were pelleted at 4000 RCF for 15 min at 4 °C. DNA was extracted from the pelleted cells (MasterPure Complete DNA and RNA Purification Kit, Lucigen), quantified by fluorometry (Qubit, Invitrogen) and the extract volume adjusted to achieve a DNA concentration of 10 ng µL−1. The expected number of eukaryotic cells µL−1 of extract was calculated as the difference between the total cells in the sample prior to centrifugation and in the supernatant afterward (as determined by flow cytometry) divided by the final extract volume. Copy number of the 18S rRNA genes µL−1 of extract was determined by qPCR with the appropriate group-specific primers. The resulting value of gene copies µL−1 was divided by the equivalent number of eukaryotic cells µL−1 in the extract (assuming 100% extraction efficiency) to derive minimum estimates of gene copies cell−1. An average value for representatives within each genus/clade (1–5 isolates) was used to calculate in situ cell concentrations for the genus. These derived in situ abundances were compared to flow cytometric counts of total photosynthetic picoeukaryotes at Station ALOHA obtained from the Hawai’i Ocean Time-series Data Organization and Graphical System (https://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/hot-dogs/).Global distribution revealed through Tara Oceans 18S rRNA metabarcodesTo estimate the relative abundance of the OTUs closely related to our diverse isolates on a broader geographic scale, we searched the 18S rRNA-V9 sequence data from the 0.8–5 µm fraction of surface water sampled at 40 stations by the Tara Oceans project (http://taraoceans.sb-roscoff.fr/EukDiv/). Reads for ‘Tara lineages’ with highest similarity (E-value < 10−15) to each of our targeted clades (Supplementary Table S1) were expressed as a fraction of total reads excluding dinoflagellates but included all other Tara Oceans phytoplankton ‘taxogroups’: Bacillariophyta, Bolidophyceae, Chlorarachnea, Chlorophyceae, Chrysophyceae/Synurophyceae, Cryptophyta, Dictyochophyceae, Euglenida, Glaucocystophyta, Haptophyta, Mamiellophyceae, Other Archaeplastida, Other Chlorophyta, Pelagophyceae, Phaeophyceae, Pinguiophyceae, Prasino-Clade-7, Pyramimonadales, Raphidophyceae, Rhodophyta and Trebouxiophyceae. Dinoflagellates were excluded because of the difficulty in assigning phototrophic vs. heterotrophic status to all taxa, and because nearly all dinoflagellate reads were from a single, poorly annotated OTU that was also highly abundant in larger size fractions. More
