The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Utilization of different nitrogen sources by the marine cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus
Abstract
Prochlorococcus is the most abundant phytoplankter throughout the photic zone in stratified marine waters and experiences distinct gradients of light and nitrogen nutrition. Physiologically and genetically distinct Prochlorococcus ecotypes partition the water column: high‐B/A (low‐light adapted) ecotypes are generally restricted to the deep euphotic zone near or at the nitracline. Low‐B/A (high‐light adapted) ecotypes predominate in, but are not limited to, NO 3-‐depleted surface waters, where they outnumber coexisting Synechococcus populations. The niche partitioning by different Prochlorococcus ecotypes begs the question of whether they also differ in their nitrogen (N) utilization physiology, especially with respect to NO 3- utilization. To explore this possibility, we studied the capabilities of different Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus strains to grow on a variety of N sources. We found that all the isolates grew well on NH 4+ and all were capable of urea utilization, occasionally at a lower growth rate. None of the Prochlorococcus isolates were able to grow with NO 3-. Four high‐B/A Prochlorococcus isolates grew on NO 3-, but all others did not. Whole genome analysis of the low‐B/A Prochlorococcus MED4 revealed that the genes required for NO uptake and reduction were absent. The genome of the high‐B/A Prochlorococcus MIT 9313 also lacked the NO 3- utilization genes but has homologs of genes required for NO 3- utilization consistent with its physiology and ecology. Thus, the utilization of different N sources in the marine environment is partitioned among closely related ecotypes, each with adaptations optimized for the environment where these sources are available.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Uncultured Microbial Majority
Rappé, M. S., & Giovannoni, S. J. (2003) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.57.030502.090759 · Cited by 2,017
Stewart, E. J. (2012) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.00345-12 · Cited by 1,161
Emergent Biogeography of Microbial Communities in a Model Ocean
Follows, M. J., Dutkiewicz, S., Grant, S., & Chisholm, S. W. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1138544 · Cited by 873
Self-citationPhotosynthesis genes in marine viruses yield proteins during host infection
Lindell, D., Jaffe, J. D., Johnson, Z. I., Church, G. M., & Chisholm, S. W. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04111 · Cited by 560
Self-citationVan Mooy, B. A. S., Rocap, G., Fredricks, H. F., Evans, C. T., & Devol, A. H. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0600540103 · Cited by 394
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, L. R., Post, A. F., Rocap, G., & Chisholm, S. W.
- Venue
- Limnology and Oceanography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 989-996
- ISSN
- 0024-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5590
- OpenAlex
- W2169020438
- Cited by
- 534
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Utilization of different nitrogen sources by the marine cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4319/lo.2002.47.4.0989
- The paper
- Moore, L. R., Post, A. F., Rocap, G., & Chisholm, S. W. (2002). Utilization of different nitrogen sources by the marine cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. Limnology and Oceanography. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2002.47.4.0989
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.