1 Supporting Information for
2 Latent functional diversity may accelerate microbial
3 community responses to environmental fluctuations
4 Thomas P. Smith, Shorok Mombrikotb, Emma Ransome, Dimitrios-Georgios Kontopoulos, Samraat Pawar, Thomas Bell
5 Contents
6 1 Details of isolated strains 1
7 2 Phylum differences seen in alternative datasets 3
8 3 Alternative model of trait evolution 3
9 1 Details of isolated strains
10 Full details of all the isolates and their taxonomy as determined through 16S sequencing is shown in
11 Table S1. Whilst there is taxonomic diversity in the isolates, there were also genetically similar isolates
12 (tentatively the same “species” or “ecotypes”) which were obtained more than once. In particular, isolates
13 from the Bacillus cereus group, which consists of several genetically similar species - B. anthracis, B.
14 cereus, B. mycoides, B. thuringiensis and B. weihenstephanensis [Logan and Vos, 2015], were commonly
15 found across many temperature treatments. Their close genetic relatedness prevents 16S rDNA sequences
16 from being a good tool for accurate species delimitation [Ash et al., 1991], so taxonomy was assigned
17 based on phenotypic characteristics. B. mycoides were differentiated from other Bacillus cereus groups
18 strains by rhizoid colony architecture [Logan and Vos, 2015]. Strains displaying cold tolerance (growth at ◦ 19 5 C) were designated as B. weihenstephanensis [Lechner et al., 1998, Logan and Vos, 2015]. Finally, two
20 strains with highest BLAST matches to B. cereus, B. mycoides and B. weihenstephanensis but displaying
21 neither cold tolerance, nor rhizoid colonies, were designated B. cereus. Due to the high similarity of 16S
22 sequences across this group, these strains do not cluster into monophyletic species groups.
1 Table S1: List of strains and ecotypes isolated.
Strain codes follow XX YY ZZ naming convention, where XX is the incubation temperature, YY is the isolation temperature and ZZ is a numeric designator for the specific isolate. RT = room temperature (22◦C, termed “standard temperature” in the main text).
Ecotype Associated Strains Phylum Class Order Family Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus 50 50 06 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Anoxybacillus tepidamans 50 50 02 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Arthrobacter sp. 10 10 06 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Micrococcales Micrococcaceae Bacillus bataviensis 40 RT 02 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Bacillus megaterium 40 40 01; 40 40 03; 21 RT 02; 40 RT 05 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Bacillus mycoides 21 21 05; 30 30 05; 30 RT 03 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Bacillus cereus 21 21 01; 21 R 06 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Bacillus weihenstephanensis 04 04 05; 30 30 02; 30 30 04; 04 RT 01; Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae 04 RT 03; 10 RT 03; 30 RT 06; 40 RT 06; 50 RT 02; 50 RT 06 Bacillus simplex 40 RT 01; 50 RT 01 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Bacillus sp. bataviensis-like 50 RT 04 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae 2 Bacillus sp. niacini-like 50 RT 03 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Bacillus sp. Shackletonii-like 50 50 05 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Brevibacillus thermoruber 50 50 03; 50 50 04 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Cohnella sp. 40 40 02; 40 40 05 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Paenibacillaceae Collimonas sp. 04 04 04; 21 21 04; 21 RT 01 Proteobacteria Betaproteobacteria Burkholderiales Oxalobacteraceae Dyella japonica 30 RT 04 Proteobacteria Gammaproteobacteria Xanthomonadales Rhodanobacteraceae Dyella marensis 21 RT 04 Proteobacteria Gammaproteobacteria Xanthomonadales Rhodanobacteraceae Labrys methylaminiphilus 30 30 08 Proteobacteria Alphaproteobacteria Rhizobiales Xanthobacteraceae Nocardia coeliaca 21 RT 05 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Corynebacteriales Nocardiaceae Paenibacillus sp. 21 RT 03 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Paenibacillaceae Pseudomonas helmanticensis 04 04 02; 04 04 06; 04 RT 02; 04 RT 05 Proteobacteria Gammaproteobacteria Pseudomonadales Pseudomonadaceae Pseudomonas protegens 10 RT 01; 10 RT 02 Proteobacteria Gammaproteobacteria Pseudomonadales Pseudomonadaceae Pseudomonas rhodesiae-like 21 21 02; 21 21 06 Proteobacteria Gammaproteobacteria Pseudomonadales Pseudomonadaceae Rummeliibacillus pycnus 40 40 04 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Planococcaceae Rummeliibacillus stabekisii 50 50 01 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Planococcaceae Streptomyces lactacystinicus 30 30 01; 30 30 06; 30 30 07 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Streptomycetales Streptomycetaceae Streptomyces mirabilis 30 30 03 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Streptomycetales Streptomycetaceae Variovorax boronicumulans 30 RT 01; 30 RT 02 Proteobacteria Betaproteobacteria Burkholderiales Comamonadaceae Variovorax soli 30 RT 05 Proteobacteria Betaproteobacteria Burkholderiales Comamonadaceae Viridibacillus arenosi 40 RT 03; 40 RT 04 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Planococcaceae Viridibacillus sp. 40 40 06 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Planococcaceae 23 2 Phylum differences seen in alternative datasets
24 To ask whether the higher growth rates and lower respiration rates of Firmicutes comparative to Pro-
25 teobacteria was a phenomenon constrained to our small dataset, or whether it was a more general trend
26 observed between the two phyla, we compared this to the data compiled in two meta-analyses - DeLong
27 et al. [2010] and Smith et al. [2019]. DeLong et al. [2010] compiled data on both active (growth phase)
28 and passive (stationary phase) metabolic rates across a range of bacteria (mainly from Makarieva et al. ◦ 29 [2005]), which were corrected to 20 C using an activation energy of 0.61eV. In this dataset, Proteobacteria
30 have higher active and passive metabolic rates than Firmicutes (active rates Wilcoxon rank-sum test p =
31 0.0017; passive rates Wilcoxon rank-sum test p = 0.0098, Fig. S1A), consistent with the work presented
32 in our main text. The DeLong et. al. dataset also contains maximum growth rate data (also corrected to ◦ 33 20 C using an activation energy of 0.61eV). However, there is no significant difference between the growth
34 rates of the two phyla in these data (Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value = 0.66, Fig. S1B). Additionally, we
35 investigated differences in the growth rates of data compiled in Smith et al. [2019]. Given the findings
36 in Smith et al. [2019] of hotter-is-better for mesophiles but not thermophiles, and the small number of ◦ 37 thermophilic Proteobacteria, these data were restricted to mesophiles (Tpk < 40.5 C) and temperature ◦ 38 corrected to 20 C based on each strain’s individual TPC parameters. In this dataset, there is a signifi-
39 cant difference between growth rates, with Firmicutes on average higher than Proteobacteria (Wilcoxon 40 rank-sum test p = 0.00035, Fig. S1C). We also compared the distribution of Topt for both phyla in the 41 data of Smith et al. [2019] and find that Proteobacteria account for much more of the low-temperature
42 strains, whilst Firmicutes are more associated with high temperatures (Fig. S1D), this is consistent with
43 our temperature isolation findings (main text Fig. 2A).
Figure S1: Comparison of Firmicutes and Proteobacteria meta-analysis datasets.
A. Dataset used by DeLong et al. [2010] shows significantly higher active and passive metabolic rates for Proteobacteria than Firmicutes. Significance determined by Wilcoxon rank-sum tests – ns p > 0.05; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001. B. The growth rate data used by DeLong et al. [2010] shows no significant difference between the phyla. C. The growth rate data from Smith et al. [2019] does show significantly increased growth rates for Firmicutes over Proteobacteria however. D. Distribution of Firmicutes and Proteobacteria Topt from Smith et al. [2019]. Proteobacteria account for a large proportion of the low temperature strains, whilst Firmicutes dominate the high temperatures. Dotted line marks 40.5◦C, a cut-off between mesophiles and thermophiles.
44 3 Alternative model of trait evolution
45 In the main text we test phylogenetic heritability of Topt using Pagel’s λ metric [Pagel, 1999], Blomberg’s 46 K is another metric which is also widely used to infer phylogenetic heritability [Blomberg et al., 2003,
47 M¨unkem¨ulleret al., 2012]. Blomberg’s K calculates the phylogenetic signal strength as the ratio of
48 the mean squared error of the tip data and the mean squared error of the variance-covariance matrix
49 of the given phylogeny, under the assumption of BM [M¨unkem¨ulleret al., 2012]. K = 1 indicates
50 relatives resembling each other as closely as would be expected under a BM model, K < 1 indicates
51 less phylogenetic signal than expected under BM and K > 1 indicates more phylogenetic signal than
52 expected and thus a substantial degree of trait conservatism [Blomberg et al., 2003]. Under a Brownian
3 53 motion model of trait evolution, Pagel’s λ is expected to perform better than K, which may itself be 54 better utilised for simulation studies [M¨unkem¨ulleret al., 2012]. Previous work suggests that Tpk is likely 55 to evolve in a Brownian motion manner in prokaryotes [Kontopoulos et al., 2019], making λ an a more
56 appropriate metric for these data than K. Furthermore, λ is potentially more robust to incompletely
57 resolved phylogenies and is therefore likely to provide a better measure than K for ecological data in
58 incomplete phylogenies [Molina-Venegas and Rodr´ıguez,2017]. Therefore, we use λ in the main text as
59 likely the more appropriate metric for our data. Here, for the sake of completeness, we also test for
60 phylogenetic heritability using K. We find that Blomberg’s K metric also produces a strong signal of 61 phylogenetic heritability in our Topt data (K = 0.979, p < 0.001). This is qualitatively the same result 62 as the λ test given in the main text.
63 References
64 Carol Ash, John A E Farrow, Matthias Dorsch, and Erko Stackebrandt. Compartive Analysis of Bacillus
65 anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and Related Species on the Basis of Reverse Transcriptase Sequencing of
66 16s rRNA. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriolog, 41(3):343–346, 1991.
67 Simon P. Blomberg, Theodore Garland Jr., and Anthony R. Ives. Testing for phylogenetic signal
68 in comparative data: behavioural traits are more labile. Evolution, 57(4):717–745, 2003. URL 69 papers3://publication/uuid/6491F366-E5D8-4C57-AC3E-184DC28B6055.
70 John P DeLong, Jordan G Okie, Melanie E Moses, Richard M Sibly, and James H Brown. Shifts in
71 metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major evolutionary transitions of life. Proceedings
72 of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(29):12941–12945, 2010. ISSN
73 0027-8424. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007783107.
74 Dimitrios Georgios Kontopoulos, Thomas P Smith, Timothy G Barraclough, and Samraat Pawar. Adap-
75 tive evolution explains the present-day distribution of the thermal sensitivity of population growth
76 rate. bioRxiv, 2019.
77 S. Lechner, R. Mayr, K. P. Francis, B. M. Pruss, T. Kaplan, E. Wiessner-Gunkel, G. S. A. B. Stewart, and
78 S. Scherer. Bacillus weihenstephanensis sp. nov. is a new psychrotolerant species of the Bacillus cereus
79 group. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 48(4):1373–1382, 1998. ISSN 0020-7713. doi:
80 10.1099/00207713-48-4-1373.
81 Niall A. Logan and Paul De Vos. Bacillus. In Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria,
82 pages 1–163. John Wiley & Sons., 2015. ISBN 9781118960608. doi: 10.1002/9781118960608.gbm00530.
83 A. M Makarieva, V. G Gorshkov, and B.-L. Li. Energetics of the smallest: do bacteria
84 breathe at the same rate as whales? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci-
85 ences, 272(1577):2219–2224, 2005. ISSN 0962-8452. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3225. URL 86 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rspb.2005.3225.
87 Rafael Molina-Venegas and Miguel Rodr´ıguez.Revisiting phylogenetic signal; strong or negligible impacts
88 of polytomies and branch length information? BMC Evolutionary Biology, 17(1):1–10, 2017. ISSN
89 14712148. doi: 10.1186/s12862-017-0898-y.
90 Tamara M¨unkem¨uller,S´ebastienLavergne, Bruno Bzeznik, St´ephaneDray, Thibaut Jombart, Katja
91 Schiffers, and Wilfried Thuiller. How to measure and test phylogenetic signal. Methods in Ecology and
92 Evolution, 3(4):743–756, 2012. ISSN 2041210X. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00196.x.
93 M Pagel. Inferring historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature, 401:877–884, 1999.
94 Thomas P Smith, Thomas J H Thomas, Bernardo Garcia-Carreras, Sofia Sal, Gabriel Yvon-Durocher,
95 Thomas Bell, and Samraat Pawar. Community-level respiration of prokaryotic microbes may rise with
96 global warming. Nature Communications, 10:5124, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13109-1.
4