↓ Skip to main content

Complementary Metaproteomic Approaches to Assess the Bacterioplankton Response toward a Phytoplankton Spring Bloom in the Southern North Sea

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Complementary Metaproteomic Approaches to Assess the Bacterioplankton Response toward a Phytoplankton Spring Bloom in the Southern North Sea
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00442
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars Wöhlbrand, Bernd Wemheuer, Christoph Feenders, Hanna S. Ruppersberg, Christina Hinrichs, Bernd Blasius, Rolf Daniel, Ralf Rabus

Abstract

Annually recurring phytoplankton spring blooms are characteristic of temperate coastal shelf seas. During these blooms, environmental conditions, including nutrient availability, differ considerably from non-bloom conditions, affecting the entire ecosystem including the bacterioplankton. Accordingly, the emerging ecological niches during bloom transition are occupied by different bacterial populations, with Roseobacter RCA cluster and SAR92 clade members exhibiting high metabolic activity during bloom events. In this study, the functional response of the ambient bacterial community toward a Phaeocystis globosa bloom in the southern North Sea was studied using metaproteomic approaches. In contrast to other metaproteomic studies of marine bacterial communities, this is the first study comparing two different cell lysis and protein preparation methods [using trifluoroethanol (TFE) and in-solution digest as well as bead beating and SDS-based solubilization and in-gel digest (BB GeLC)]. In addition, two different mass spectrometric techniques (ESI-iontrap MS and MALDI-TOF MS) were used for peptide analysis. A total of 585 different proteins were identified, 296 of which were only detected using the TFE and 191 by the BB GeLC method, demonstrating the complementarity of these sample preparation methods. Furthermore, 158 proteins of the TFE cell lysis samples were exclusively detected by ESI-iontrap MS while 105 were only detected using MALDI-TOF MS, underpinning the value of using two different ionization and mass analysis methods. Notably, 12% of the detected proteins represent predicted integral membrane proteins, including the difficult to detect rhodopsin, indicating a considerable coverage of membrane proteins by this approach. This comprehensive approach verified previous metaproteomic studies of marine bacterioplankton, e.g., detection of many transport-related proteins (17% of the detected proteins). In addition, new insights into e.g., carbon and nitrogen metabolism were obtained. For instance, the C1 pathway was more prominent outside the bloom and different strategies for glucose metabolism seem to be applied under the studied conditions. Furthermore, a higher number of nitrogen assimilating proteins were present under non-bloom conditions, reflecting the competition for this limited macro nutrient under oligotrophic conditions. Overall, application of different sample preparation techniques as well as MS methods facilitated a more holistic picture of the marine bacterioplankton response to changing environmental conditions.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 27%
Student > Master 9 24%
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 27%
Environmental Science 9 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 3 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,546,001
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#10,589
of 24,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,374
of 309,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#272
of 474 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 474 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.