the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Transporter gene family evolution in ectomycorrhizal fungi in relation to mineral weathering capabilities
Abstract. The role of ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi in biological mineral weathering is increasingly recognised, although the quantitative significance of microbially mediated mineral dissolution for plant growth is debated. Species within the ECM genus Suillus are found to preferentially inhabit mineral soils and are frequently reported to possess mineral weathering capabilities. Though studies growing ECM fungi with minerals have shown heightened mycelial nutrient content compared to growth without minerals, the mechanistic understanding of nutrient mobilisation and uptake associated with weathering remains largely unknown. We examined copy numbers of 173 transporter gene families present in 108 Agaricomycetes species, and analysed evolutionary expansions and contractions of base cation transporter gene families across the phylogeny. We also quantified mycelial base cation uptake by ECM species in the genera Suillus and Piloderma, and two saprotrophic fungi, when grown in pure culture with and without minerals. We hypothesised that 1) greater base cation uptake is dependent on evolutionary expansions in copy-numbers of base cation transporter genes, 2) mineral weathering results in base cation uptake by Suillus growing in pure culture with mineral additions, 3) base cation uptake by Suillus growing in pure culture with mineral additions will be greater compared to other fungal species, and 4) base cation uptake will correlate with base cation transporter gene family copy numbers. We showed that 25 transporter gene families are significantly expanding and contracting in the genus Suillus, 10 of which correspond to base cation transporter families and two of which are accessories to base cation transport, highlighting the importance of base cation uptake and transport in the life strategy of Suillus species. Additionally, there are significant expansions in the Fungal Mating-type Pheromone Receptor (MAT-PR) Family in Suillus species, suggesting that these species are adapting to their environment. For all elements there were examples of higher mycelial concentrations after growth in pure culture with mineral additions as compared to the nutrient limited treatment for Suillus species but also for some Piloderma species, confirming that mineral weathering resulted in base cation uptake in pure culture. For 40 % of the significantly expanding and/or contracting base cation gene transporters families, copy numbers were significantly correlated with uptake of mineral elements, and most of the significant correlations were positive. This suggested that members of the genus Suillus are rapidly evolving, and that the expansions and/or contractions in these transporter families are likely to be related to the requirement of base cation uptake, underpinned by the finding that mycelial uptake of elements in the presence of minerals often increased with base cation transporter family copy numbers. Further work into other levels of regulation, e.g. through transcriptional regulation of transporter proteins, would be useful to gain a deeper understanding of base cation uptake regulation and its role in mineral weathering by Suillus species, and ECM fungi in general.
- Preprint
(1235 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Supplemental information not found for egusphere-2024-3930', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2025
I tried to find supplemental information to review this manuscript, but there is no DOI at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28016633. Please notify authors to fix this so I can review all materials in a timely manner.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3930-RC1 -
EC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mark Lever, 07 Feb 2025
Thank you for pointing that out. I just heard from the authors: The SI can be found at this link: https://figshare.com/s/bdf230f68420e2ed9404
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3930-EC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on EC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Feb 2025
The authors investigate how base cation transporter gene families are important for mineral weathering processing by fungi. The authors use different approaches, but the different parts could be brought together more organically. Overall, this is a very interesting idea, but the rationale is not well articulated and the different parts are not connected. I think that the article could be published but not in its current form. Broadly, it would be helpful to have a clearer motivation stated and some way of bringing together the different components. I have some general suggestions:Please add at the beginning of the introduction some information about mineral weathering and perhaps a definition.
I'm wondering if it would be helpful to have a diagram of the soil and the movement of the nutrients through weathering and fungal uptake in the introduction. Perhaps including Mg and the elements in Table 1 to bring the different parts of the paper together that feel a bit dispersive.
It is unclear overall what is the logic of the questions. For example, why did the authors look into the fungal mating-type pheromone? Justify the biology? Explain why is the expansion in pheromone receoptors suggestive of adaptation to an environment?
For hypothesis 2, does the base cation uptake simulated in experimental conditions by the mineral additions?
Are hypotheses 3 and 4 fundamentally the same? Or is there something specific about Suillus that the authors are trying to test?
If it's just Suillus, how can we know if it's just lineage-specific? How can you exclude the evolution at the root? Or explain more clearly what the analysis is showing within Suillus.
Add the goal/context for the bioinformatics section (2.1) to understand the questions those methods will help address.
Provide more context for looking into Mg transporter family.
Why is there no figure with the whole Agaricomycotina tree?
I have a few specific suggestions:
Figure 1 - what is the input matrix to calculate the PCAs? counts of genes? Perhaps a multipanel figure with also the phylogeny might help explain the analysis?
Figure 2 - add branch lengths. The reason for this tree is to show the taxa that are tested in the lab? Since the bioinformatics section talks about a Agaricomycotina tree, I am puzzled by the selection of these taxa and what the purpose of this tree is.
Figure 3 - highlight panels with significant slopes and mention statistical test in caption.
Figure 4 - highlight different species on the figure with boxes around the names or labels. Report significance and statistical tests used in the caption.
L18 list species of saprotrophic fungi
L397-401 sentence is incredibly long
L417 onwards, is there a way of summarising the information on significance so that it's not so difficult to read through? perhaps a table?
L447 italicise luteusCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3930-RC2
-
RC2: 'Reply on EC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Feb 2025
-
EC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mark Lever, 07 Feb 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3930', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2025
Using bioinformatic and culture-based approaches, this study examined the evolution of base cation transporter gene families in ectomycorrhizal fungi and their relationship to mineral uptake into mycelial biomass. Evolutionary expansions in copy numbers of these genes were linked to increased uptake of base cations into biomass. Overall this is an interesting and important study that covers a considerable amount of work. However, the presentation of the hypotheses, the results, the figures, and the overall writing of the manuscript need quite a bit of restructuring and simplification. I recommend accepting this manuscript for publication with major revisions.
General comments
How are hypotheses 1 and 4 different? It makes sense to combine them: “Greater base cation uptake is dependent on base cation transporter gene family copy numbers that result from evolutionary expansions”. This would require some reorganization of the results and discussion, but would them clearer and more concise.
Seventy-three supplemental figures is far too many. The authors should condense the expansion/contraction information from supplemental tree figures S3-S17 (which all appear to use the same phylogenomic tree) into one figure with a heatmap next to the tree, since they all represent the same idea. Likewise with figures S18-S56 for the partial dataset. The total number of gene family expansions/contractions shown in Fig 2 could also be included in this figure. This can be done in anvio by running anvi-import-misc-data for each tip of the tree.
The gene family evolution results are basically presented as a list, and could be made much more concise. I suspect that condensing and synthesizing gene expansion/deletion data from supplemental figures would lead to a broader-scale presentation of results that reads more naturally. Same idea for the mycelial cation correlation results.
Overall, the manuscript is very long. Significant sections require editing or removal to be made more concise or clear–more is not always better. I’ve given some examples below.
Introduction
Rewrite run-on or unclear sentences in lines 52-55, 57-60, and condense section from lines 80-91.
Methods
Line 220: I assume you meant micrometers instead of mm.
Line 246: How was biomass harvested? A brief description or citation would be sufficient.
Commas are needed to provide clarity on lines 160, 192, 279, and elsewhere in the manuscript. A period is missing in line 265.
Table 1: Why not simply specify the absolute concentrations of each mineral in each medium, rather than as a relative increase from the minimum medium?
Results/Figures/Supplementals
Line 300: Replace “There are” with “In the clade Agaricomycotina, we identified…”
Line 305: Assume you meant MFS instead
Figure 1a: Curious to know if you observe a separation between the non-Suillaceae, non-Russulaceae ECM and the non-ECM if you plotted on one of the other primary axes. Do all ECM fungi have different transporter gene composition from non-ECM fungi?
Similar comment for the correlations (Figures S58-S68), but do something like plot the R2 values to condense these into a single figure.
Fig. 2: Include in the legend that + refers to an expansion and – a contraction (I assume)
Fig. 3: Why show (or even mention, line 408) all the non-significant correlations? It distracts from the correlations you did find.
Line 444: Specify statistical test and results. Was this an ANOVA?
Discussion
Line 535: This point would be made more strongly if presented after synthesizing the base cation uptake results.
Line 540: How exactly might the choice or number of taxa influence the numbers of gene families found to have significant expansions/contractions, and what consequence might this have for interpreting these results? Please cite an example if possible.
Line 580: Add a reference to a figure here.
Awkward/unclear phrasing: lines 582-584
Line 601: Mention that this is hypothesis 2 (here, instead of in the next sentence that only references previous studies).
Line 612: Mention that this is hypothesis 3, since hypotheses were numbered in the abstract.
Lines 628, 632: Add references to figures here.
Line 624: Mention that this is hypothesis 4
Lines 625-634 belong in the results, not the discussion.
Line 634: typo?
Lines 649-652: run-on sentence
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3930-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
158 | 49 | 11 | 218 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 158
- PDF: 49
- XML: 11
- Total: 218
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 90 | 42 |
Sweden | 2 | 20 | 9 |
China | 3 | 12 | 5 |
France | 4 | 10 | 4 |
Netherlands | 5 | 9 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 90