Highest plasticity of carbon‐concentrating mechanisms in earliest evolved phytoplankton

Dedmer B Van De Waal,Björn Rost,Scarlett Trimborn,Sebastian Rokitta,Sven A Kranz,Karen M Brandenburg,Joost Keuskamp

doi:10.1002/lol2.10102

Abstract

AbstractPhytoplankton photosynthesis strongly relies on the operation of carbon‐concentrating mechanisms (CCMs) to accumulate CO2 around their carboxylating enzyme ribulose‐1,5‐bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO). Earlier evolved phytoplankton groups were shown to exhibit higher CCM activities to compensate for their RuBisCO with low CO2 specificities. Here, we tested whether earlier evolved phytoplankton groups also exhibit a higher CCM plasticity. To this end, we collected data from literature and applied a Bayesian linear meta‐analytic model. Our results show that with elevated pCO2, photosynthetic CO2 affinities decreased strongest and most consistent for the earlier evolved groups, i.e., cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates, while CO2‐dependent changes in affinities for haptophytes and diatoms were smaller and less consistent. In addition, responses of maximum photosynthetic rates toward elevated pCO2 were generally small and inconsistent across species. Our results demonstrate that phytoplankton groups with an earlier origin possess a high CCM plasticity, whereas more recently evolved groups do not, which likely results from evolved differences in the CO2 specificity of RuBisCO.

Highlights

Author Contribution Statement: DBvdW collected and analyzed the data and wrote a first draft of the manuscript
Our results demonstrate that phytoplankton groups with an earlier origin possess a high concentrating mechanisms (CCMs) plasticity, whereas more recently evolved groups do not, which likely results from evolved differences in the CO2 specificity of RuBisCO
K1/2 increased in the cyanobacteria Synechococcus sp. by ~ 5-fold and in Trichodesmium erythraeum by ~ 3-fold and in the dinoflagellates Heterocapsa triquetra by ~ 17-fold, in Prorocentrum cordatum by ~ 13-fold, and in Protoceratium reticulatum by ~ 6-fold (Fig. 2B)

Summary

Introduction

Author Contribution Statement: DBvdW collected and analyzed the data and wrote a first draft of the manuscript. KMB helped with data collection and initial analyses of the data, provided feedback, and edited the manuscript drafts. JK developed the scripts for the meta-analysis, analyzed the data, and edited the manuscript drafts. ST, SR, and SK provided relevant references and data for the meta-analysis, provided feedback, and edited the manuscript drafts. BR helped with developing the ideas and writing a first version of the manuscript and edited the manuscript drafts

Methods

Results

Conclusion