Cited by 60Fungal and yeast genetics researchYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genetic basis of priority effects: insights from nectar yeast

Open access
Dhami, Manpreet K., Hartwig, Thomas, Fukami, Tadashi·2016·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Priority effects, in which the order of species arrival dictates community assembly, can have a major influence on species diversity, but the genetic basis of priority effects remains unknown. Here, we suggest that nitrogen scavenging genes previously considered responsible for starvation avoidance may drive priority effects by causing rapid resource depletion. Using single-molecule sequencing, we de novo assembled the genome of the nectar-colonizing yeast, Metschnikowia reukaufii , across eight scaffolds and complete mitochondrion, with gap-free coverage over gene spaces. We found a high rate of tandem gene duplication in this genome, enriched for nitrogen metabolism and transport. Both high-capacity amino acid importers, GAP1 and PUT4 , present as tandem gene arrays, were highly expressed in synthetic nectar and regulated by the availability and quality of amino acids. In experiments with competitive nectar yeast, Candida rancensis , amino acid addition alleviated suppression of C. rancensis by early arrival of M. reukaufii , corroborating that amino acid scavenging may contribute to priority effects. Because niche pre-emption via rapid resource depletion may underlie priority effects in a broad range of microbial, plant and animal communities, nutrient scavenging genes like the ones we considered here may be broadly relevant to understanding priority effects.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2016.1455

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. 10.1086/285143 · DOI
  2. 10.1086/282961 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s00442-003-1311-7 · DOI
  4. 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1225:CAIEGS]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  5. 10.2307/1939162 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/ismej.2015.38 · DOI
  7. 10.1186/s12866-015-0381-0 · DOI
  8. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160340 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02202.x · DOI
  10. 10.1098/rspb.2011.1230 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/ele.12204 · DOI
  12. 10.1098/rspb.2013.2637 · DOI
  13. 10.1098/rspb.2009.1485 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/1462-2920.13037 · DOI
  15. 10.1098/rspb.2012.2601 · DOI
  16. 10.1890/13-1740.1 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.femsec.2004.06.003 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2001.tb00007.x · DOI
  19. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05402.x · DOI
  20. 10.1038/nature07743 · DOI
  21. 10.1038/ncomms6896 · DOI
  22. 10.1101/gr.6743907 · DOI
  23. 10.1073/pnas.1603941113 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00886.x · DOI
  25. 10.1186/1471-2164-15-411 · DOI
  26. 10.1146/annurev.genet.33.1.351 · DOI
  27. 10.1073/pnas.1932072100 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1186/1471-2164-11-56 · DOI
  29. 10.1099/00221287-146-8-1797 · DOI
  30. 10.4161/cib.23933 · DOI
  31. 10.1073/pnas.1014023107 · DOI
  32. 10.1385/MB:12:1:35 · DOI
  33. 10.1128/jb.175.1.64-73.1993 · DOI
  34. 10.2323/jgam.55.427 · DOI
  35. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03732.x · DOI
  36. 10.1111/1365-2745.12170 · DOI
  37. 10.1074/jbc.M114.612069 · DOI
  38. 10.1128/EC.00008-13 · DOI
  39. 10.1073/pnas.91.26.12985 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.04.003 · DOI
  41. 10.1007/s00248-011-9975-8 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.009 · DOI
  43. 10.1186/1471-2164-14-168 · DOI
  44. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti610 · DOI
  45. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016526 · DOI
  46. 10.1101/gr.113985.110 · DOI
  47. 10.1093/gbe/evv219 · DOI
  48. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Collart MA Oliviero S. 2001 Preparation of yeast RNA. In Current protocols in molecular biology vol. 23 series vol. IV pp. 13.12:13.12.1–13.12.5. New York NY: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (doi:10.1002/0471142727.mb1312s23) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dhami, M. K., Hartwig, T., & Fukami, T.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Carnegie Institution for Science (US)
Corresponding author
  • Dhami, Manpreet K.
  • Fukami, Tadashi
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2016-10-12
Volume
283
Issue
1840
Pages
20161455
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2528865292
Cited by
60
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEB 1149600)
  • Carnegie Institution of Washington (Endowment Fellowship)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
priority effects, nectar yeasts, Metschnikowia reukaufii, nitrogen scavenging, GAP1, tandem gene duplication, genome assembly, resource depletion, competitive exclusion, community assembly
MeSH terms
Plants, Genome, Fungal, Gene Duplication, Metschnikowia, Plant Nectar

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review