2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2010.06.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distinct gene set in two different lineages of ammonia-oxidizing archaea supports the phylum Thaumarchaeota

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

12
302
0
9

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 423 publications
(325 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
12
302
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Both the concatenated ribosomal protein and 16S/ 23S trees are built as consensus trees using 18 and 16 phylogenetic analyses, respectively, and both approaches yield consistent phylogenetic placement of the NAG1 lineage. Several universally conserved housekeeping genes have been utilized previously for phylum-level patterning in the Archaea (Spang et al, 2010), and this same analysis of de novo NAG1 assemblies supports the conclusion that NAG1 organisms are representatives of a phylum-level lineage (Supplementary Figure S2; Supplementary Table S2). Specifically, topoisomerase and translation proteins show a distinct pattern difference in NAG1 populations compared with other Archaea.…”
Section: Metagenome Assembliessupporting
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Both the concatenated ribosomal protein and 16S/ 23S trees are built as consensus trees using 18 and 16 phylogenetic analyses, respectively, and both approaches yield consistent phylogenetic placement of the NAG1 lineage. Several universally conserved housekeeping genes have been utilized previously for phylum-level patterning in the Archaea (Spang et al, 2010), and this same analysis of de novo NAG1 assemblies supports the conclusion that NAG1 organisms are representatives of a phylum-level lineage (Supplementary Figure S2; Supplementary Table S2). Specifically, topoisomerase and translation proteins show a distinct pattern difference in NAG1 populations compared with other Archaea.…”
Section: Metagenome Assembliessupporting
confidence: 73%
“…A fourth phylum (Nanoarchaeota) was described after the discovery and genome analysis of the symbiont species Candidatus Nanoarchaeum equitans , although placement of the Nanoarchaeota as a new phylum is still debated and is based primarily on a single genome sequence and 16S rRNA sequences (Brochier et al, 2005). More recently, the candidate phylum Thaumarchaeota was proposed (Brochier-Armanet et al, 2008), and detailed analysis of genome sequence from multiple representatives of this lineage provides convincing evidence that this group of organisms is significantly different from other recognized phyla within the Archaea (Spang et al, 2010). Specifically, phylogenetic analysis of housekeeping genes (that is, ribosomal proteins and enzymes involved in translation, replication, cell division and repair) from Nitrosopumilus maritimus, Nitrososphaera gargensis and Candidatus Cenarchaeum symbiosum provides strong evidence for the unique and distinguishing genetic features of members of this phylum.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One sequence from CN25 and two sequences from CN75 contained single nucleotide changes (all at different positions) from this consensus sequence. Isotope fractionation by ammonia-oxidizing archaea AE Santoro and KL Casciotti Phylogenetic analyses place all three sequences within the Marine Group I archaea, now proposed as a new archaeal kingdom-the Thaumarchaeota (Brochier-Armanet et al, 2008;Spang et al, 2010;Walker et al, 2010) (Figure 2a). The 16S rRNA gene sequences from CN25 and CN75 are 100% identical to each other, and 92% identical to N. maritimus.…”
Section: Phylogeny and Physiologymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The domain of Archaea consists of four kingdoms, the Eury-, Cren-and Nanoarchaeota as well as the recently, on the basis of genome analysis of enriched Archaea, proposed Thaumarchaeota (Brochier-Armanet et al, 2008;Spang et al, 2010), formerly classified as Group I Crenarchaeota. All Thaumarchaeota known so far are capable of ammonia oxidation (Kö nneke et al, 2005;de la Torre et al, 2008;Hatzenpichler et al, 2008;Park et al, 2010) and are widespread in non-extreme environments (DeLong, 1992;Fuhrman et al, 1992;DeLong et al, 1998;Schouten et al, 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%