ABSTRACT

While methane is typically produced under anoxic conditions, methane supersaturation in the presence of oxygen has been observed in both marine and fresh waters. The biological cleavage of methylphosphonate (MPn), which releases both phosphate and methane, is one pathway that may contribute to this paradox. Here, we explore the genomic and functional potential for oxic methane production (OMP) via MPn in Flathead Lake, a large oligotrophic freshwater lake in northwest Montana. Time series and depth profile measurements show that epilimnetic methane was persistently supersaturated despite high oxygen levels, suggesting a possible in situ oxic source. Metagenomic sequencing indicated that 10% of microorganisms in the lake, many of which are related to the Burkholderiales (Betaproteobacteria) and Actinomycetota, have the genomic capacity to cleave MPn. We experimentally demonstrated that these organisms produce methane stoichiometrically with MPn consumption across multiple years. However, methane was only produced at appreciable rates in the presence of MPn when a labile organic carbon source was added, suggesting that this process may be limited by both MPn and labile carbon supply. Members of the genera Acidovorax, Rhodoferax, and Allorhizobium, organisms which make up less than 1% of Flathead Lake communities, consistently responded to MPn addition. We demonstrate that the genomic and physiological potential for MPn use exists among diverse, resident members of Flathead Lake and could contribute to OMP in freshwater lakes when substrates are available.

IMPORTANCE

Methane is an important greenhouse gas that is typically produced under anoxic conditions. We show that methane is supersaturated in a large oligotrophic lake despite the presence of oxygen. Metagenomic sequencing indicates that diverse, widespread microorganisms may contribute to the oxic production of methane through the cleavage of methylphosphonate. We experimentally demonstrate that these organisms, especially members of the genus Acidovorax, can produce methane through this process. However, appreciable rates of methane production only occurred when both methylphosphonate and labile sources of carbon were added, indicating that this process may be limited to specific niches and may not be completely responsible for methane concentrations in Flathead Lake. This work adds to our understanding of methane dynamics by describing the organisms and the rates at which they can produce methane through an oxic pathway in a representative oligotrophic lake.

INTRODUCTION

Globally, freshwaters account for approximately 20% of methane (CH4) emissions to the atmosphere (1). The conventional understanding of biological methanogenesis is that it occurs exclusively under anoxic conditions (2, 3). However, in the upper ocean and the epilimnia of freshwater lakes where oxygen is present, concentrations of methane can be supersaturated with respect to atmospheric equilibrium (48). A growing number of studies using measurements of methane stable isotopic composition and physical transport modeling indicate that supply from anoxic habitats may not be responsible for these elevated concentrations (7, 9). While many mechanisms for methane production in oxic waters have been suggested, including photosynthesis, the metabolism of methylated amines, and within cryptic anoxic niches (1013), the degree to which these pathways contribute to methane supersaturation is unknown. Our understanding of the production of CH4 and its contribution to atmospheric concentrations is important as methane flux from lakes is projected to increase in future climate change scenarios (14, 15).
Many lakes appear phosphorus limited (16, 17), potentially inducing the use of alternative phosphorus sources other than phosphate by microorganisms. A portion of the dissolved organic matter pool in marine and freshwater environments resides as dissolved organic phosphorus (DOP), a poorly characterized reservoir of carbon and phosphorus (18). DOP can include phosphonates, compounds characterized by a stable C-P bond that is synthesized as part of lipid headgroups, exopolysaccharides, and glycoproteins (19). These compounds are produced by some of the most abundant lineages in the global ocean, including SAR11, Prochlorococcus, and Nitrosopumilus (2023). While phosphonates and the transcription of genes involved in their synthesis have been detected in freshwater ecosystems (10, 2429), quantitative determinations of their types, abundances, and distributions are sparse. One type of phosphonate is methylphosphonate (MPn), the demethylation of which releases not only phosphate but also methane. Oxic methane production (OMP) via the degradation of MPn has helped explain the methane paradox in the upper ocean (3034). Organisms in freshwater and meromictic lakes can also cleave MPn, including members of the Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, and Betaproteobacteria (3537). However, the contribution of this process to methane production in phosphorus-limited freshwater systems and the diversity of organisms catalyzing it have not been well documented.
We explored the dynamics of methane and the microbial capacity to use MPn in Flathead Lake, Montana, one of the largest (surface area ~500 km2, maximum depth 116 m) natural freshwater lakes in the western United States. Its short hydrologic residence time (~2.2 years) (38) and environmentally protected, largely undeveloped montane watershed make Flathead Lake oligotrophic; soluble reactive phosphorus levels are typically below detection, and N:P stoichiometric ratios are elevated (39). Experimentally, plankton growth in the lake can be limited by nitrogen, phosphorus, or light (3942). A large fraction of the available nitrogen and phosphorus may be in the form of dissolved organic matter (39, 43). In this study, we sought to address four questions: (i) How do concentrations of methane vary over space and time in Flathead Lake? (ii) What is the taxonomic and temporal distribution of organisms that have the genomic capacity for methylphosphonate-mediated methane production? (iii) Can we show experimentally that these organisms can perform OMP? (iv) What factors may limit the magnitude of OMP in situ?

RESULTS

Methane dynamics and production in Flathead Lake

To evaluate the possibility of OMP occurring in Flathead Lake, we investigated the dynamics of methane and oxygen concentrations in Flathead Lake over a 3-year period (Fig. 1). Sampling was conducted at the long-term monitoring site Midlake Deep (MLD), one of the deepest points in the lake (~113 m). The lake was persistently oxic, with oxygen percent saturation rarely falling below 80%. Methane concentrations typically ranged from 20 to 200 nM and were consistently oversaturated with respect to atmospheric levels. Methane was generally highest and evenly distributed across all depths during the spring. As the summer progressed, a subsurface methane maximum developed. Concentrations were elevated throughout the upper 10–15 m and peaked within the upper thermocline in August and September, suggesting an in situ source of methane within the epilimnion.
Fig 1
Fig 1 Methane is present and temporally variable, despite the consistent presence of oxygen, in Flathead Lake, Montana. Methane concentrations (A) and oxygen percent saturation (B) in Flathead Lake over a 3-year period. Black dots reflect sampling points. The gray area reflects dates and depths where no methane measurements were conducted.

Methane-related microbial diversity in Flathead Lake

We performed metagenomic sequencing to explore the potential for methane generation in Flathead Lake during 2018 (Table S1). The methyl coenzyme M reductase (mcrA) gene, a diagnostic marker for methanogenesis (44), and known methanogenic archaea were absent in our metagenomic and 16S rRNA amplicon data sets. In contrast, we found that up to 15% of the species in Flathead Lake had the capacity to cleave MPn, producing phosphate and methane, using the C-P lyase gene phnJ (Fig. 2). When accounting for the relative abundances of these organisms, they represented between 2% and 10% of the total overall community. The majority of the phnJ diversity was represented by sequences related to the Betaproteobacteria (order Burkholderiales; some databases now classify them as Gammaproteobacteria) and Actinomycetota (previously Actinobacteria or Actinobacteriota; class Ilumatobacteraceae) but also included members of the Alphaproteobacteria, Bacteroidota (previously Bacteroidetes), other Pseudomonadota (Proteobacteria), and Verrucomicrobiota. While the number of organisms with phnJ generally appeared higher within the epilimnion than in deeper waters, neither the percentage of species (Pearson correlation, R < 0.1, P > 0.9) or percentage of organisms (Pearson correlation, R < 0.1, P > 0.75) correlated with methane concentrations. These observations were consistent when looking at the distributions of other genes in the phn operon.
Fig 2
Fig 2 Members of the Betaproteobacteria and Actinomycetota are the most diverse and abundant phnJ-containing organisms in Flathead Lake (metagenomic sequencing from samples collected in 2018). (A) Relative abundance of species that have phnJ relative to the total number of unique species estimated from single-copy marker genes. (B) Relative abundance of microorganisms within the community which have phnJ relative to single-copy marker gene abundances based on read recruitment. Relative abundances at each time point are designated by circle size, while the colors represent the proportion of that relative abundance attributed to a given taxonomic group. Circle size and colors are the same in both panels.
We screened the in situ metagenomes for the capacity for phosphonate production and alternative pathways of methane cycling. Members of the phylum Nitrospirota (previously Nitrospirae) and the family Rhodospirillales (Alphaproteobacteria) possessed the pepM gene for the first step in phosphonate biosynthesis. These genes were present in the deep waters of the lake. We also identified putative, divergent pepM genes related to members of the Dehalococcoideae, Ignavibacteriae, Bacteroidota, Bacillota, Woesarchaeota, Pseudomonadota (<70% similar to Pelagibacter), and Polynucleobacter. These sequences generally showed less than 70% similarity to all currently published sequences. The gene ppd (aepY), involved in the conversion of Pn-pyruvate to Pn-acetylaldehyde, was also divergent in our metagenomes, with genes often showing less than 50% similarity to sequences belonging to the Deltaproteobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria, Woesarchaeota, Nitrospirota, Verrucomicrobiota, Bacillota, and Flavobacteriaceae within the Bacteroidota. We were unable to find the mpnS gene, which encodes the protein for the final step of MPn biosynthesis, in any of the in situ lake metagenomes based on KEGG annotations. While not the focus of this study, we did see evidence that other types of phosphonates may also be important in freshwater systems; genes for the degradation of 2-aminoethylphosphonate (phnW, phnX) were found in abundant members of the Flathead Lake bacterial community, including the genus Limnohabitans, Chloroflexota (previously Chloroflexi), Nitrospirota, and Verrucomicrobiota. Notably, we identified a methane monooxygenase subunit A (pmoA) gene related to the Methylococcaceae, often used to identify methanotrophs, in April at multiple depths when methane concentrations were elevated. This was consistent with 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing which revealed that the methanotrophic family Methylococcaceae (<0.2% of all communities) was present at all depths in April but subsequently decreased to below detection the upper 15 m in the summer despite elevated methane concentrations (Fig. S1).

Nutrient amendments

Given the presence of the metabolic potential for OMP via MPn demethylation as revealed by metagenomics, we evaluated the functional capacity for this process using rate measurements of methane production under different nutrient amendments during the summers of 2017, 2018, and 2021 (Fig. 3). These experiments, using water collected from 5 m in July and August, were timed to coincide with periods when methane concentrations were elevated in the upper 10 m of the lake. Amendments included combinations of MPn, phosphate (P), nitrate (N), and glucose (C) under different light regimes (Table 1). In the unamended controls, net rates of methane production were low, averaging 0.55 ± 0.14 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1 (n = 6 experiments). Treatments amended with only N + C demonstrated net methane consumption (averaging −0.75 ± 0.69 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1; n = 4 experiments). Similarly, treatments amended with P + N + C yielded net rates of methane production that were lower than in the controls (0.15 ± 0.26 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1; n = 6 experiments). None of these treatments were significantly different than the control (Dunnett’s test, P > 0.05). In contrast, Flathead Lake water amended with MPn + N + C consistently produced methane after a 2- to 3-day lag time, with rates averaging 116.6 ± 23.2 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1 (n = 6 experiments; Dunnett’s test, P < 0.05). Methane production was correlated with the drawdown of total dissolved phosphorus (Fig. S2). In some treatments, methane concentrations plateaued at a maximum of ~0.5 µM methane despite remaining MPn. Some of these treatments also showed apparent remineralization of phosphorus over the course of the incubation, with total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) initially decreasing, but then increasing again later in the incubation period. These amendments had the lowest carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus (106:16:1 µM) concentrations added. In contrast, in treatments where carbon (250 µM) or nitrogen (30 µM) was added in excess, methane increased to final concentrations that approached the total added MPn. When samples were amended with both MPn + P, along with labile carbon and nitrogen sources, methane production rates were significantly repressed, averaging only 13.0 ± 10.1 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1 (n = 2 experiments). No differences were observed between amendments incubated in the dark, in the light, or in a dockside incubator maintaining in situ light and temperature fluctuations (dark, 0.58 ± 0.20 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1; constant or in situ light, 0.49 ± 0.23 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1; t-test, P > 0.05).
Fig 3
Fig 3 Flathead Lake summer communities (2017, 2018, and 2021) consistently produce methane when amended with methylphosphonate, nitrate, and glucose. (A) Time-course methane concentrations from five experiments conducted with communities from 5-m depth that were amended with different nutrients (MPn, methylphosphonate; P, phosphate; N, nitrate; C, glucose). (B) Average rates of methane production grouped by type of nutrient amendment. Each amendment was performed in triplicate.
TABLE 1
TABLE 1 Nutrient amendments performed using water from the epilimnion in Flathead Lakea
Start dateUnamended controlN + CP + NP + N + C2P + N + CMPn + NMPn + N + C2MPn + N + CMPn + P + N + CConditions
2 August 2017+2:30:10602:30:106Dark, 22.5°C
2 July 2018+16:1061:16:1061:16:106Dark, 22.5°C
24 July 2018+16:1061:16:1061:16:106Dark and light, 22.5°C
9 August 2018+1:16:1061:16:1060.5:0.5:16:106Dark, 22.5°C
20 July 2020+1:161:16:2502:16:2501:161:16:2502:16:2501:1:16:250In situ light and temperature
7 July 2021+16:2501:16:2501:16:2500.5:0.5:16:250In situ light and temperature
a
All ratios indicate micromolar nutrient additions. Symbol + or a ratio indicates the amendment was performed, while symbol − means it was not performed. P, phosphate; N, nitrate; C, glucose; MPn, methylphosphonate.
To evaluate the community response to MPn, we measured a more exhaustive list of properties during an amendment using lake water from 5-m depth in Summer 2020 performed under simulated in situ lake light and temperature conditions. This included measurements of cell abundances, chlorophyll a (chl a), nutrient concentrations, and metagenomic sequencing. Methane concentrations were highest in the upper 15 m at the time of sampling for this experiment, with in situ concentrations in excess of 1,000% of atmospheric equilibrium (Fig. S3). The rate of methane production without amendment was 1.51 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1 (Fig. 4). Methane production was not stimulated through the addition of P + N or P + N + C (1.11 and 1.32 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1, respectively). The addition of MPn + N also did not substantially increase methane production (2.46 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1). In contrast, as previously observed, the addition of MPn + N + C increased rates of net methane production to >50 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1, with methane produced stoichiometrically with the amount of phosphorus consumed. Consistent with the previous experiments, the addition of P alongside MPn + N + C inhibited methane production. Greater than 75% of the amended P was consumed in the MPn + N + C, P + N + C, and P + N treatments where 1 µM P was added (Fig. 4; Fig. S4). In contrast, less than ~10% of the available phosphorus and nitrate were consumed in the MPn + N treatment. TDP also remained in treatments where 2 µM phosphorus was added, likely reflecting carbon or nitrogen limitation.
Fig 4
Fig 4 Methane is produced by members of the Betaproteobacteria (Burkholderiales) following amendment of Flathead Lake water (5-m depth) with methylphosphonate, glucose, and nitrate in July 2020. (A) Methane concentrations over time following amendment with different nutrients (MPn, methylphosphonate; P, phosphate; N, nitrate; C, glucose). (B) The total amount of methane produced relative to the amount of phosphorus consumed in each amendment. The dashed line is the 1:1 line. (C) The percentage of species present in each amendment which have the phnJ gene, colored by their taxonomic distribution. One replicate was performed for each amendment.

Community composition following amendment

We performed metagenomic sequencing to identify the microorganisms which responded to the Summer 2020 amendment which simulated in situ lake light and temperature conditions. Based on 16S rRNA gene composition, at the onset of the experiment the in situ lake community contained high abundances of members of the Actinomycetota (Fig. S5), including sequences similar (>99%) to those from the genera Nanopelagicus, Planktophila, and other members of the hgcI clade. The most abundant 16S rRNA gene was related to the clade SAR11, identical to that obtained from Lake Superior (45) and 99.8% similar to the isolate Fonsibacter ubiquis (46). Abundant sequences related to the Burkholderiales included those similar to Limnohabitans, Limnobacter, Polynucleobacter, Methylopumilus, and Rhodoferax. Other taxa of note included those related to the Methylacidiphilaceae within the phylum Verrucomicrobiota, the cyanobacterial genus Cyanobium, and the Flavobacterium within the Bacteroidota. These organisms are consistent with those reported from other freshwater lakes (4750), indicating that our starting community reflected the diversity typically found in freshwater systems. At the end of the experiment, the community in the unamended control was similar to the starting sample.
Nutrient amendments strongly influenced community composition. Photosynthetic and eukaryotic taxa responded to the P + N treatment based on cell abundances, chl a concentrations, and predicted eukaryotic contigs (Fig. S6). Cyanobacteria belonging to the genus Cyanobium were present, along with Bacteroidota which are known to be associated with phytoplankton blooms [e.g., references (5153)]. Eukaryotic 18S rRNA genes also became more prevalent in the P + N treatment, including rRNA genes deriving from diatoms Bacillariophyta (Thalassiosira, Skeletonema), the green algae Chlorophyta, and the ciliate Ciliophora. In contrast, the microbial community from the treatment amended with MPn + N remained largely similar to the control community, reflected by high abundances of Fonsibacter, the actinobacterial hgcI clade, and diverse members of the Burkholderiales. In treatments amended with P + N + C, we observed a strong response of members of the Bacteroidota. The most abundant sequences in this treatment were related to the Spirosomaceae and included the genus Flectobacillus (54), an organism which can change its cell size to avoid grazing (5558). In addition, members of the Alphaproteobacteria, including sequences related to the genus Caulobacter and the groups Sphingomonadales and Rhodobacteraceae, and the phylum Actinomycetota (genera Rhodoluna and Aquiluna) all responded to the P + N + C treatment. Uncharacterized sequences within the Burkholderiales, which were distantly related (<96% similar) to Rhodoferax and Acidovorax, were also present.
In contrast to the above community responses, samples amended with MPn + N + C were dominated by members of the Burkholderiales. The most abundant 16S rRNA gene sequences belonged to the genus Acidovorax and were similar to Acidovorax sp. RAC01 (59). Sequences related to Rhodoferax, Curvibacter, Ideonella, and Hydrogenophaga were also present (60, 61). Altogether, members of the Betaproteobacteria represented more than 90% of the community following amendment with MPn + N + C. The alphaproteobacterial family Rhizobiaceae also made up 1% of these communities. Despite the presence of MPn, N, and C, the MPn + P + N + C amendment was comparable to samples amended with P + N + C, showing an enrichment of Bacteroidota, Microbacteriaceae, and Sphingomonadales.

Methylphosphonate cycling diversity

To identify organisms which responded to our treatments that had the biosynthetic capacity for methylphosphonate use, we screened the amendments for the phnJ gene (Fig. 4). Approximately 7% of the species in the control had the phnJ gene, consistent with our analyses from 2018 (Fig. 2). These sequences were similar to those reported above, including members of the Betaproteobacteria (Burkholderiales; Rhodoferax, Curvibacter, Limnohabitans, and Methylopumilus), Actinomycetota (Actinomycetia and Ilumatobacteraceae), Alphaproteobacteria (Rhodospirilalles, Caulobacteraceae, and Sphingomonadales), and Bacteroidota. In contrast, over 40% of the species in the MPn + N + C amendments had phnJ, showing that MPn amendment in the presence of labile carbon and nitrogen selected for microorganisms capable of using MPn. These sequences were almost entirely related to the Burkholderiales and included the genera Acidovorax and Rhodoferax. While the in situ lake samples also had sequences distantly related to Acidovorax and Rhodoferax, the MPn + N + C enrichment phnJ were unique (sharing <90% amino acid identity), indicating distinct microorganisms in these samples.
To further explore the metabolic potential within each amendment, we performed genome binning (Table 2). We report metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from a wide group of phyla that reflect the most abundant organisms in each treatment (Fig. 5; Fig. S7). This includes two MAGs belonging to the genus Acidovorax which were the most abundant genomes in the MPn + N + C and 2MPn + N + C amendments. These genomes shared 98.3% average nucleotide identity, higher than the 95% average nucleotide identity (ANI) demarcation used for identifying distinct species (62, 63). To see if the response of this organism was consistent across not only replicates but also across years, we sequenced one 2018 MPn + N + C enrichment. We discovered that the 2018 enrichment also contained an abundant Acidovorax MAG which shared >98.5% ANI to those from 2020. All three MAGs shared >98% ANI with strain UKL202B from Klamath Lake (64). A further Acidovorax genome was obtained from the MPn + N enrichment; however, this MAG shared less than 83% ANI with the other three Acidovorax genomes. Similarly, related yet distinct MAGs belonging to the genus Rhodoferax showed differential read recruitment between amendments (Fig. S7). Altogether, these findings suggest the presence of many closely related members of the Burkholderiales in Flathead Lake that may respond in distinct but reproducible ways to the availability of nutrients and organic matter.
TABLE 2
TABLE 2 Metagenome-assembled genomes obtained from nutrient amendments reported in this study
Genome binEnrichmentCompleteness (%)Contamination (%)Strain heterogeneity (%)ContigsTotal length (bp)Largest contig (bp)N50 (bp)GTDB-tk taxonomy
Fluviicola sp. B02.bin.61MPn + N + C (2018)1000.290324,679,305607,597226,288d__Bacteria;p__Bacteroidota;c__Bacteroidia;
o__Flavobacteriales;f__Crocinitomicaceae;g__Fluviicola
Acidovorax sp. D18.bin.11MPn + N + C99.584.1428584,445,087308,013127,350d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Acidovorax
Cyanobium sp. D14.bin.5P + N99.460.8233.33632,537,766158,13356,259d__Bacteria;p__Cyanobacteria;c__Cyanobacteriia;
o__PCC-6307;f__Cyanobiaceae;g__Cyanobium_A;
Acidovorax sp. D19.bin.162MPn + N + C99.158.9810.421014,487,718260,87561,772d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Acidovorax
Cthoniobacterales sp. D17.bin.12MPn + N98.6500591,686,801135,07343,924d__Bacteria;p__Verrucomicrobiota;c__Verrucomicrobiae;
o__Chthoniobacterales;f__UBA6821;g__CAIWMF01
Rhodoferax sp. D15.bin.32P + N + C98.51.5220243,069,559411,177181,599d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Rhodoferax
Akkermansiaceae sp. D14.bin.19P + N98.460.680883,025,235304,64443,437d__Bacteria;p__Verrucomicrobiota;c__Verrucomicrobiae;
o__Verrucomicrobiales;f__Akkermansiaceae;g__UBA1315
Acidovorax sp. D17.bin.4MPn + N97.852.9926.321394,692,353111,28852,092d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Acidovorax
Caulobacter sp. D15.bin.28P + N + C97.780.8133.33733,506,601209,48680,555d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Alphaproteobacteria;
o__Caulobacterales;f__Caulobacteraceae;g__Caulobacter
Prosthecobacter sp. B02.bin.14MPn + N + C (2018)97.622.0433.331165,253,014293,07984,038d__Bacteria;p__Verrucomicrobiota;c__Verrucomicrobiae;
o__Verrucomicrobiales;f__Verrucomicrobiaceae;g__Prosthecobacter
Verrucomicrobiales sp. B02.bin.66MPn + N + C (2018)96.870.6801984,395,267103,09133,241d__Bacteria;p__Verrucomicrobiota;c__Verrucomicrobiae;
o__Verrucomicrobiales;f__DEV007;g__Arctic95D-9
Limnobacter sp. B02.bin.52MPn + N + C (2018)96.0400213,279,365559,054305,781d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Limnobacter
Gammaproteobacteria sp. B02.bin.47MPn + N + C (2018)95.332.3830.771733,817,206169,06332,748d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Ga0077536;f__Ga0077536;g__Ga0077536
Ramlibacter sp. B02.bin.21MPn + N + C (2018)94.091.12401823,853,593157,22331,635d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Ramlibacter
Flavobacterium sp. D14.bin.25P + N93.821.3222.22582,014,991168,53143,385d__Bacteria;p__Bacteroidota;c__Bacteroidia;
o__Flavobacteriales;f__Flavobacteriaceae;g__Flavobacterium
Vampirovibrionales sp. B02.bin.2MPn + N + C (2018)93.591.710132,189,344486,615414,704d__Bacteria;p__Cyanobacteria;c__Vampirovibrionia;
o__Vampirovibrionales;f__;g__
Fimbriimonas sp. D15.bin.35P + N + C93.060.930382,808,834366,894120,327d__Bacteria;p__Armatimonadota;c__Fimbriimonadia;
o__Fimbriimonadales;f__Fimbriimonadaceae;g__Fimbriimonas
Pedosphaerales sp. B02.bin.58MPn + N + C (2018)92.572.03402163,618,27991,80822,155d__Bacteria;p__Verrucomicrobiota;c__Verrucomicrobiae;
o__Pedosphaerales;f__UBA9464;g__SXXZ01
Burkholderiaceae sp. B02.bin.46MPn + N + C (2018)910.3602182,647,75357,47514,389d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__NBD-18
Bacteriovoracaceae sp. B02.bin.3MPn + N + C (2018)90.71.7901033,079,245123,07050,454d__Bacteria;p__Bdellovibrionota;c__Bacteriovoracia;
o__Bacteriovoracales;f__Bacteriovoracaceae;g__
Sphingorhabdus sp. D14.bin.29P + N89.860.7283.331032,104,40893,46931,795d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Alphaproteobacteria;
o__Sphingomonadales;f__Sphingomonadaceae;g__Sphingorhabdus_B
Aquabacterium sp. D15.bin.16P + N + C88.382.7438.463174,464,873100,88317,062d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Aquabacterium_A
Allorhizobium sp. D19.bin.142MPn + N + C85.760.58502624,014,89074,71419,018d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Alphaproteobacteria;
o__Rhizobiales;f__Rhizobiaceae;g__Allorhizobium
Verrucomicrobiaceae sp. D15.bin.11P + N + C83.721.02502924,012,57161,89216,785d__Bacteria;p__Verrucomicrobiota;c__Verrucomicrobiae;
o__Verrucomicrobiales;f__Verrucomicrobiaceae;g__
Rhodoferax sp. D18.bin.6MPn + N + C80.541.32751432,736,719148,95524,994d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Rhodoferax
Aquiluna sp. D15.bin.23P + N + C76.361.4610076991,78978,20714,987d__Bacteria;p__Actinobacteriota;c__Actinomycetia;
o__Actinomycetales;f__Microbacteriaceae;g__Aquiluna
Methylopumilus sp. D11.bin.5Control T076.2600551,114,23477,51427,645d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Methylophilaceae;g__Methylopumilus_A
Acidovorax sp. B02.bin.37MPn + N + C (2018)74.862.08502443,202,69867,85216,936d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Acidovorax
Allorhizobium sp. B02.bin.8MPn + N + C (2018)74.651.5137.53684,128,37569,64912,526d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Alphaproteobacteria;
o__Rhizobiales;f__Rhizobiaceae;g__Allorhizobium
Methylopumilus sp. B02.bin.35MPn + N + C (2018)73.890039825,70772,59728,880d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Methylophilaceae;g__Methylopumilus
Nevskia sp. B02.bin.34MPn + N + C (2018)73.451.03251522,968,62767,88021,936d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Nevskiales;f__Nevskiaceae;g__Nevskia
Fonsibacter sp. D13.bin.21Control Tf70.081.210064589,62333,7769,058d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Alphaproteobacteria;
o__Pelagibacterales;f__Pelagibacteraceae;g__Fonsibacter
Rhodoferax sp. D15.bin.5P + N + C68.340.7666.672422,487,48241,14011,151d__Bacteria;p__Proteobacteria;c__Gammaproteobacteria;
o__Burkholderiales;f__Burkholderiaceae;g__Rhodoferax
Flectobacillus sp. D16.bin.82P + N + C62.880.31003543,205,45934,5819,455d__Bacteria;p__Bacteroidota;c__Bacteroidia;
o__Cytophagales;f__Spirosomaceae;g__Flectobacillus
Fig 5
Fig 5 Members of the genus Acidovorax consistently respond to MPn addition. (A) Metagenomic read recruitment against seven representative MAGs obtained following nutrient amendment in July 2020. Reads per kilobase million reads (RPKM) values greater than 1 are shown. (B) Distribution of phosphonate cycling genes in the genus Acidovorax. Genomes obtained in this study are shown in blue. (C) Relative abundance of an Acidovorax 16S rRNA gene amplified sequence variant based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing of Flathead Lake which is identical to that obtained in the 2020 MPn amendment. Empty circles reflect the absence of this sequence.
Given the consistent response of members of Acidovorax to MPn enrichment, we explored the distribution of genes involved in phosphorus use within representative members of this genus (Fig. 5). Genes involved in phosphate transport (pstCABS) were present in every genome. The phn operon (phnFGHIJKLMNP) was widely distributed, indicating that phosphonate use is not specific to species in Flathead Lake. Genomes of various members of the Acidovorax that do not possess the capacity for MPn degradation appear associated with hosts and generally fall along the lines of a recently proposed genus division (65, 66). While rare, these organisms instead have the capacity for phosphonate production, including pepM and ppD/aepY to convert phosphoenolpyruvate to Pn-acetylaldehyde and its subsequent degradation to either acetate or acetaldehyde using phnYA or phnX. None of the genomes had mpnS, the gene responsible for the final step in the production of MPn. Ultimately, we conclude that nearly every organism in the genus Acidovorax has some capacity for phosphonate cycling, although mechanisms of phosphonate production and MPn demethylation appear present in discrete species.

Metagenomic and 16S rRNA amplicon abundances of methane cycling organisms

To evaluate the distributions of phnJ-containing Acidovorax, Rhodoferax, and Allorhizobium in Flathead Lake, we used metagenomic read recruitment and 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Metagenomic read recruitment against these MAGs showed that these organisms were rare in the in situ lake community, likely representing less than 1% of the total population (Fig. S8). Amplicon sequencing revealed one amplified sequence variant (ASV) identical to the dominant Acidovorax 16S rRNA gene sequence from our 2020 MPn + N + C amendment and shared 99.71% similarity with the 16S rRNA gene sequence from the 2018 MPn + N + C amendment. This ASV was a rare member of the Flathead Lake community, found only in the epilimnion during the summer and reached a maximum relative abundance of 0.30% (Fig. 5).

DISCUSSION

We explored methane dynamics and the potential for MPn-mediated methane production in Flathead Lake. Despite high oxygen concentrations, methane was consistently supersaturated relative to the atmosphere. These findings indicate in situ methane production or a source which supplies methane to the lake. Methane concentrations ranged from 20 to 500 nM, relatively low compared to those reported in the oxygenated water column of other lakes in which OMP has been a focus [e.g., references (6, 7, 9)]. Concentrations were highest in April when the lake was fully mixed, possibly due to fluvial CH4 input. However, the oft-reported subsurface methane maximum also appeared in Flathead Lake as the summer progressed, suggesting an in situ source. Consistent with the oligotrophic nature of Flathead Lake, methane production rates in the epilimnion, based on unamended control samples, were low and averaged 0.69 ± 0.18 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1. These rates are significantly slower than in other lakes where OMP has been studied, including Lake Stechlin (26–236 nmol L−1 d−1) (9) and Lake Hallwil (110 nmol L−1 d−1) (67).
Given high oxygen concentrations and the apparent absence of in situ anaerobic methanogenesis, we sought to determine if the cleavage of MPn could be responsible for methane production. Phosphonates can comprise up to 25% of the oceanic DOP pool (18) and have been detected in lakes, although quantitative estimates are lacking and indicate they may be low (25, 26, 28). We estimate that ~10% of Flathead Lake microorganisms have the potential for MPn cleavage via C-P lyase. These abundances are similar to those in phosphorus-limited oceanic sites (23, 68), suggesting that MPn could be an important source of P in oligotrophic systems. Members of the Betaproteobacteria and Actinomycetota were the most well-represented lineages, consistent with findings in other lakes (10, 35, 37). Although the biosynthetic potential for phosphonate production appears widespread (29), genes for this process (pepM, ppd, and mpnS) in Flathead Lake were relatively rare. Similar findings have been reported in the ocean, where genes for the production of phosphonates are less abundant than those for its consumption (22, 23, 69). It is striking that while some of the most abundant lineages in marine systems appear capable of producing or consuming MPn, including SAR11 and Prochlorococcus (21, 22, 70, 71), we did not identify MPn cycling genes within Flathead Lake from members of the freshwater SAR11 Fonsibacter or cyanobacterial Synechococcus-related Cyanobium. Given the presence of putative phosphonate transporters in genomes of freshwater cyanobacteria (72), including those in Flathead Lake, it is possible these organisms are capable of cycling MPn using currently undescribed pathways. Regardless, it is evident that diverse microorganisms can use MPn in this system.
Following the observation of methane supersaturation and the identification of widespread genomic potential for MPn use, we experimentally demonstrated that the functional capacity for OMP exists in Flathead Lake. We found that substantial methane was only produced when both MPn and glucose were added (102.6 ± 19.4 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1 across all experiments). Methane was not produced following amendment with only carbon and nitrogen or MPn and nitrogen, indicating that these communities may be limited in situ not only by MPn substrate availability but also by organic carbon. OMP was also not observed at high rates in amendments with phosphate, even in the presence of MPn and carbon. Phosphate repression of C-P lyase has been observed in both isolates and environmental samples (35, 37, 73, 74), consistent with regulation by the Pho regulon (69). Our finding that methane production in Flathead Lake may be carbon limited is consistent with other studies which have shown that methane production is stimulated by other nutrients, including in the presence of particles and labile dissolved organic matter and through the addition of carbon, nitrogen, and even iron (31, 37, 75). Given that dissolved organic carbon in Flathead Lake is ~100 µM, similar to concentrations in the open ocean (76) where MPn is thought to contribute significantly to methane production, the type and lability of the carbon available may be important in how organisms respond to MPn. MPn cleavage may, therefore, occur at labile carbon hotspots, for example, associated with zooplankton detritus (77) or in the phycosphere, and may be a more prominent source of OMP in eutrophic lakes with excess C and N. Future work should consider the importance of the types of carbon in how and which organisms respond to MPn.
Using metagenomic sequencing, we identified the dominant microorganisms responding to MPn as members of the genera Acidovorax and Rhodoferax. Closely related strains (>98% ANI) of Acidovorax responded across both replicates and years and showed similarity to genomes from other lakes. These findings highlight the consistent response of Acidovorax to MPn, nitrate, and glucose temporally and the potential widespread distribution of this organism. Notably, members of this genus can produce methane through other aerobic pathways (78), further solidifying their role in OMP. We found that the genes for MPn use are widely distributed in this genus and did not co-occur with those for MPn synthesis, consistent with metagenomic analyses of a wide diversity of organisms from the ocean (23). In our experiments, unique strains of Acidovorax and Rhodoferax appeared to respond differently to the amendments, indicating that Flathead Lake is home to a large diversity of closely related members of the Burkholderiales that appear to differ in their nutrient and organic matter preferences. The organisms that responded to MPn amendment are rare in situ, likely representing <1% of the Flathead Lake community. Future transcriptomic sequencing of Flathead Lake communities will determine if these microorganisms, which show robust phosphonate utilization, are active in situ.
While we have shown that heterotrophic microorganisms are able to perform OMP in Flathead Lake, we conclude that net OMP is altogether very low in this system (mean 0.34 ± 0.07 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1 in all treatments with no added MPn; range, −2.81 to 1.59 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1). We are unable to rule out alternative sources of methane that could contribute to the observed supersaturation in Flathead Lake. One possibility is that methane may be produced by or associated with certain photosynthetic organisms (10, 11, 7981). However, we did not observe strong differences in methane production in treatments in complete darkness or those with light (0.58 ± 0.20 and 0.83 ± 0.23 nmol CH4 L−1 d−1, respectively; t-test, P > 0.5) or in treatments where photosynthetic organisms responded. This would also not be consistent with high methane concentrations observed during April when the lake is still fully mixed. Alternatively, lateral transport from anoxic habitats (littoral, fluvial) could be a source of methane to Flathead Lake [e.g., references (8285)]. While we provide evidence that the capacity for MPn use exists under the right conditions, namely, when both MPn and labile organic carbon are available, future work will be needed to fully understand the sources and sinks of methane in Flathead Lake.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sampling was conducted at the long-term monitoring site termed Midlake Deep (47.867 N, 114.067 W) in Flathead Lake from aboard the research vessel Jessie B. At 113-m depth, Midlake Deep is one of the deepest points in the lake. Oxygen measurements were obtained with a Hydrolab DS5 (OTT HydroMet, Sheffield, UK) and are publicly available through the Flathead Monitoring Program (https://flbs.umt.edu/publicdata). Water samples were collected using an opaque 3-L Van Dorn water sampler or a 10-L Niskin bottle affixed to a wire and lowered via electric winch. Methane samples were fixed immediately (see below), while all other samples were stored in dark coolers during transportation back to the laboratory.

In situ methane concentrations

Methane concentrations in Flathead Lake were measured approximately monthly over a 3-year period in 2018–2021. Water was placed in glass serum bottles crimp-sealed with gray chlorobutyl rubber stoppers and injection of NaOH to a final concentration of 0.1 M was used to stop biological activity. A headspace was introduced into each sample using ultra-high pure N2 gas followed by agitation to allow gas concentrations in the headspace to equilibrate with the liquid sample. Methane was analyzed by gas chromatography via headspace (20 mL) gas introduction (Model 8610C, SRI Instruments). Methane and oxygen concentrations were visualized and contoured using Ocean Data View (86).

In situ lake metagenomic sequencing

To document the microbial diversity and potential for phosphonate use in Flathead Lake, we performed metagenomic sequencing from 16 samples collected at MLD in 2018. Depths ranged from 5 to 90 m. Approximately 1 L was serially filtered onto both a 3-µm, 25-mm GTTP polycarbonate filter (EMD Millipore, MA, USA) and a 25-mm, 0.2-µm polyethersulfone filter (SUPOR, Pall Co., NY, USA). Samples were stored at −80°C prior to DNA extraction. Genomic DNA from the <3.0 to >0.2 µm fraction was extracted using a MasterPure DNA purification kit (Lucigen, WI, USA). DNA libraries were sequenced on a Novaseq (NEB Ultra II DNA library prep kit; Novogene, Sacramento, CA), a NextSeq 2000 (Illumina DNA Prep kit; Microbial Genome Sequencing Center, Pittsburgh, PA), or a MiSeq (Nextera; Genomics Core Facility, University of Montana).
Raw reads were quality trimmed using Trimmomatic v0.39 (87) and assembled with MEGAHIT (88) using default parameters. The depth of coverage of contigs was estimated using Bowtie 2 v2.3.5.1 (89) and SAMtools v1.10 (90). Open reading frames were identified with Prodigal V2.6.3 (91). Gene annotation was performed using GhostKOALA (92). C-P lyase genes (phnJ; K06163) involved in MPn cleavage were classified taxonomically against the nr database using blastP (cut off 75%) (93) and through the construction of phylogenetic trees using reference sequences. Trees were created by alignment with MUSCLE (94), built using FastTree (95), and visualized using iTOL (96). We classified sequences at the phylum or class level. We estimated the percentage of species able to cleave MPn by dividing the number of phnJ genes by the total number of organisms estimated using four single-copy marker genes (recA, K03553; gyrB, K02470; atpD, K02112; tufA, K02358) as previously performed (23, 30, 68). We also estimated the relative abundance of the total community represented by organisms with phnJ by using the depth of coverage of all phnJ and single-copy marker genes within each metagenome. We further identified marker genes for phosphonate production (pepM, K01841 and K23999; ppd, K09459; mpnS, K18049), the degradation of 2-aminoethylphosphonate (phnW, K03430; phnX, K05306), anaerobic methanogenesis (mcrA; K00399), and methanotrophy (pmoA, K10944; mmoX, K16157).

Nutrient amendments

To determine methane production rates under different nutrient concentrations, amendments were performed during the summers of 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021. For all years, water was collected from MLD at a depth of 5 m, placed in 20-L polycarbonate carboys, and returned to the Flathead Lake Biological Station. Carboys were amended with MPn, P, N, and C at different final concentrations and molar ratios and incubated under specific light and temperature conditions depending on the experiment (Table 1). Carboys were subsampled into sealed borosilicate glass serum vials for subsequent incubations. Amendments from 2017 and 2018 were maintained in a laboratory incubator at ~22.5°C. While most of these amendments were maintained in the dark, one experiment (24 July 2018) was performed under both constant dark and constant light. The incubator provided photosynthetically active radiation (400–700 nm) of ~400 µmol photon m−2 s−1. To mimic in situ light and temperature conditions more closely, amendments in 2020 and 2021 were maintained in a dockside incubator. The incubator was plumbed to continuously supply lake water from ~2-m depth with minimal shading (at midday; ~16°C, ~70% incident photosynthetically active radiation, ~900 µmol photon m−2 s−1). A blue plastic layer made of plexiglass served to approximate the underwater spectral quality (97, 98). Amendments from 2017, 2018, and 2021 were performed using triplicate 160-mL glass serum vials with gray chlorobutyl rubber septa. All July 2020 amendments were performed with one replicate using individual 1-L glass serum bottles sealed with a blue butyl rubber septum.
Methane concentrations were followed over time to calculate rates of production. All experiments except July 2020 sacrificed whole samples at each time point. In the case of the 2020 experiment, 15 mL of sample was withdrawn and replaced with 15 mL of zero air lacking hydrocarbons. Samples were preserved with a final concentration of 0.1 M NaOH. Methane concentrations were determined as described above. Rates of methane production were calculated between equilibrated T0 methane concentrations and methane concentrations following 5–7 days of incubation. Because methane production showed a lag period following nutrient amendment, these rates do not necessarily reflect the maximum rates between any two time points but allow for comparison across all experiments.
For determination of nitrate + nitrite (NOx) and TDP, samples were filtered through MilliQ and lake water rinsed, 47-mm diameter, 0.45-µm pore size mixed cellulose ester filters, and frozen at −20°C until analysis on an Astoria A2 segmented flow analyzer (Astoria-Pacific, OR, USA). TDP was measured colorimetrically following wet chemical oxidation using an alkaline potassium persulfate digestion and treatment with heteropoly-molybdenum blue. For NOx determinations, nitrate was converted to nitrite via cadmium reduction and quantified colorimetrically using Greiss chemistry.

2020 amendment

A more comprehensive set of measurements were performed during the amendment on 20 July 2020. These measurements are described below.
Total cell abundances and chl a-containing phototrophic organisms were determined using an Attune Acoustic Focusing flow cytometer (Thermo Fisher, MA, USA). Samples (2 mL) were fixed with paraformaldehyde (0.8% final concentration) and frozen at −80°C until analysis. For total cell abundances, cells were stained with the nucleic acid stain SYBR Green I for 15 minutes, excited using a 20-mW blue (488 nm) excitation laser, and detected with a 530-nm emission filter. Phototrophic cells containing chl a and phycoerythrin were excited using a blue (488 nm) excitation laser at 20 mW. Small phototrophic eukaryotes were detected based on chl a emission using a 640-nm longpass filter, while cyanobacteria containing phycoerythrin were distinguished using an R-phycoerythrin emission filter (574 nm). Concentrations of chl a were determined following filtration of lake water (100 mL) onto a 25-mm diameter 0.45-µm pore size mixed cellulose ester filter (Millipore). Filters were extracted at −20°C in a 90% acetone solution overnight and the fluorescence quantified using a Turner 10-AU fluorometer (Turner Designs, CA, USA), including phaeophytin correction (99).
We performed metagenomic sequencing to determine community shifts in response to the experimental amendments. Approximately 100–500 mL of water was filtered onto a 25-mm diameter, 0.2-µm polyethersulfone filter (SUPOR, Pall Co., NY, USA) and stored at −80°C. Genomic DNA was extracted using a MasterPure DNA purification kit (Lucigen, WI, USA). DNA libraries were prepared using an Illumina DNA Prep kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA) and 150-bp paired-end reads were sequenced on a NextSeq 2000 at the Microbial Genome Sequencing Center (MiGS; Pittsburgh, PA). To see if the community response to MPn amendment was consistent across years, we performed further metagenomic sequencing on an MPn + N + C amendment from 2018 (July 24, dark incubation). The amendment was serially filtered through a 3-µm, 25-mm GTTP polycarbonate filter (EMD Millipore, MA, USA) onto a 25-mm, 0.2-µm polyethersulfone filter (SUPOR, Pall Co., NY, USA). Sample storage and DNA extraction were performed on the 0.2-µm filter as described above. Library preparation and shotgun 150-bp paired-end sequencing (150 bp) were performed on a Novaseq (Novogene, Sacramento, CA).
Read clean up, assembly, and functional annotation were performed as described for the in situ communities. To evaluate microbial community composition, 16S ribosomal RNA genes were identified using barrnap (100) and classified using the SINA Aligner (101) against the SILVA database (102). Only genes identified as prokaryotic were retained. The depth of coverage of each 16S rRNA gene was used to estimate the percent abundance of each organism within the community. We further compared metagenomes against one another based on functional potential. The coverage of genes with the same KEGG annotation was summed within each metagenome. KEGG abundances within each metagenome were rarefied to equal sampling depth and compared using NMDS ordinations based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity. Permutational analysis of variance, based on the type of phosphorus added (MPn or phosphate), was performed using adonis in the package vegan (103). To explore the response of eukaryotic organisms, contigs predicted to belong to eukaryotes were identified using EukRep (104). The percentage of sequencing depth attributable to eukaryotic organisms in each metagenome was estimated based on the total reads that mapped to these contigs relative to the total number of reads.
Metagenome-assembled genomes were obtained using MetaBAT 2 v2.11.1 (105). Contigs >5 kb in length were retained. The size and quality of each genome bin were evaluated using QUAST v5.0.2 (106) and CheckM v1.0.13 (107). We report genome bins more than 60% complete and less than 10% contaminated, representing medium quality draft genomes (108). Genomes were taxonomically classified with GTDB-tk v1.6.0 (109) using KBase (110). Genome annotation was performed using Prokka v1.14.6 (111) and GhostKoala. Whole-genome trees of members of the genus Acidovorax were created using concatenated single-copy marker genes identified using CheckM, constructed using FastTree, and visualized using iTOL. Outgroups for Fig. 5B were members of the genus Hydrogenophaga. ANI comparisons were performed using OrthoANI (112). The relative representation of each bin within each metagenome was estimated by the number of reads mapped per kilobase million reads.

16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing

To further evaluate the distribution of Acidovorax in Flathead Lake, we performed 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing at MLD in 2018. Water collection, DNA extraction, and sequencing were performed as previously described (113). Sequence data were processed using the QIIME2 platform (114). ASVs were identified using DADA2 (115) and classified against the SILVA 138 database (116). Further processing and visualization were performed using phyloseq (117) in R (118). Sequences related to chloroplasts and eukaryotes were removed. We used blastn to identify ASVs identical to the most abundant 16S rRNA gene related to Acidovorax in the 2020 MPn + N + C amendment. We also used this data set to identify potential methanogenic archaea and methanotrophic organisms, including the class Methylococcaceae.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Adam Baumann, Jim Craft, Tyler Tappenbeck, Sydni Racki, Emma Wear, Miranda Seixas, Madeline Glad, Hannah Fay, and all other individuals who have contributed to the Flathead Monitoring Program.
Funding for this work was provided by National Science Foundation grants 1951002 and 1950963.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplemental file 1 - aem.01097-23-s0001.docx
Fig. S1 to S8
Supplemental file 2 - aem.01097-23-s0002.xlsx
Table S1
ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.

REFERENCES

1.
Saunois M, Bousquet P, Poulter B, Peregon A, Ciais P, Canadell JG, Dlugokencky EJ, Etiope G, Bastviken D, Houweling S, et al. 2016. The global methane budget 2000-2012. Earth Syst Sci Data 8:697–751.
2.
Thauer RK. 1998. Biochemistry of methanogenesis: a tribute to Marjory Stephenson:1998 Marjory Stephenson Prize Lecture. Microbiology (Reading) 144 ( Pt 9):2377–2406.
3.
Conrad R. 2009. The global methane cycle: recent advances in understanding the microbial processes involved. Environ Microbiol Rep 1:285–292.
4.
Bastviken D, Cole J, Pace M, Tranvik L. 2004. Methane emissions from lakes: dependence of lake characteristics, two regional assessments, and a global estimate. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18:1–12.
5.
Reeburgh WS. 2007. Oceanic methane biogeochemistry. Chem Rev 107:486–513.
6.
Grossart H-P, Frindte K, Dziallas C, Eckert W, Tang KW. 2011. Microbial methane production in oxygenated water column of an oligotrophic lake. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:19657–19661.
7.
Bogard MJ, del Giorgio PA, Boutet L, Chaves MCG, Prairie YT, Merante A, Derry AM. 2014. Oxic water column methanogenesis as a major component of aquatic CH4 fluxes. Nat Commun 5:5350.
8.
Tang KW, McGinnis DF, Frindte K, Brüchert V, Grossart HP. 2014. Paradox reconsidered: methane oversaturation in well-oxygenated lake waters. Limnol. Oceanogr 59:275–284.
9.
Günthel M, Donis D, Kirillin G, Ionescu D, Bizic M, McGinnis DF, Grossart H-P, Tang KW. 2019. Contributions of oxic methane production to surface methane emission in lakes and its global importance. Nat Commun 10:5497.
10.
Perez-Coronel E, Michael Beman J. 2022. Multiple sources of aerobic methane production in aquatic ecosystems include bacterial photosynthesis. Nat Commun 13:6454.
11.
Bižić M, Klintzsch T, Ionescu D, Hindiyeh MY, Günthel M, Muro-Pastor AM, Eckert W, Urich T, Keppler F, Grossart H-P. 2020. Aquatic and terrestrial cyanobacteria produce methane. Sci Adv 6:eaax5343.
12.
Alowaifeer AM, Wang Q, Bothner B, Sibert RJ, Joye SB, McDermott TR. 2023. Aerobic methane synthesis and dynamics in a river water environment. Limnol Oceanogr68:1762–1774.
13.
de Angelis MA, Lee C. 1994. Methane production during zooplankton grazing on marine phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 39:1298–1308.
14.
Dean JF, Middelburg JJ, Röckmann T, Aerts R, Blauw LG, Egger M, Jetten MSM, de Jong AEE, Meisel OH, Rasigraf O, Slomp CP, in’t Zandt MH, Dolman AJ. 2018. Methane feedbacks to the global climate system in a warmer world. Reviews of Geophysics 56:207–250.
15.
DelSontro T, Beaulieu JJ, Downing JA. 2019. Greenhouse gas emissions from lakes and impoundments: upscaling in the face of global change. Limnol Oceanogr Lett 3:64–75.
16.
Elser JJ, Bracken MES, Cleland EE, Gruner DS, Harpole WS, Hillebrand H, Ngai JT, Seabloom EW, Shurin JB, Smith JE. 2007. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 10:1135–1142.
17.
Sterner RW. 2008. On the phosphorus limitation paradigm for lakes. Int Rev Hydrobiol 93:433–445.
18.
Kolowith LC, Ingall ED, Benner R. 2001. Composition and cycling of marine organic phosphorus. Limnol Oceanogr 46:309–320.
19.
Metcalf WW, Griffin BM, Cicchillo RM, Gao J, Janga SC, Cooke HA, Circello BT, Evans BS, Martens-Habbena W, Stahl DA, van der Donk WA. 2012. Synthesis of methylphosphonic acid by marine microbes: a source for methane in the aerobic ocean. Science 337:1104–1107.
20.
Metcalf WW, van der Donk WA. 2009. Biosynthesis of phosphonic and phosphinic acid natural products. Annu Rev Biochem 78:65–94.
21.
Carini P, White AE, Campbell EO, Giovannoni SJ. 2014. Methane production by phosphate-starved SAR11 chemoheterotrophic marine bacteria. Nat Commun 5:1–7.
22.
Acker M, Hogle SL, Berube PM, Hackl T, Coe A, Stepanauskas R, Chisholm SW, Repeta DJ. 2022. Phosphonate production by marine microbes: exploring new sources and potential function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 119:e2113386119.
23.
Lockwood S, Greening C, Baltar F, Morales SE. 2022. Global and seasonal variation of marine phosphonate metabolism. ISME J 16:2198–2212.
24.
Nanny MA, Minear RA. 1997. Characterization of soluble unreactive phosphorus using 31P nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Marine Geology 139:77–94.
25.
Cade-Menun BJ. 2005. Characterizing phosphorus in environmental and agricultural samples by 31P nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Talanta 66:359–371.
26.
Cade-Menun BJ, Navaratnam JA, Walbridge MR. 2006. Characterizing dissolved and particulate phosphorus in water with 31P nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Environ Sci Technol 40:7874–7880.
27.
Verweij A, Degenhardt CEAM, Boter HL. 1979. The occurrence and determination of PCH3-containing compounds in surface water. Chemosphere 8:115–124.
28.
Read EK, Ivancic M, Hanson P, Cade-Menun BJ, McMahon KD. 2014. Phosphorus speciation in a eutrophic lake by 31P NMR spectroscopy. Water Res 62:229–240.
29.
Yu X, Doroghazi JR, Janga SC, Zhang JK, Circello B, Griffin BM, Labeda DP, Metcalf WW. 2013. Diversity and abundance of phosphonate biosynthetic genes in nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:20759–20764.
30.
Karl DM, Beversdorf L, Björkman KM, Church MJ, Martinez A, Delong EF. 2008. Aerobic production of methane in the sea. Nature Geosci 1:473–478.
31.
del Valle D, Karl D. 2014. Aerobic production of methane from dissolved water-column methylphosphonate and sinking particles in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Aquat Microb Ecol 73:93–105.
32.
Repeta DJ, Ferrón S, Sosa OA, Johnson CG, Repeta LD, Acker M, DeLong EF, Karl DM. 2016. Marine methane paradox explained by bacterial degradation of dissolved organic matter. Nature Geosci 9:884–887.
33.
Teikari JE, Fewer DP, Shrestha R, Hou S, Leikoski N, Mäkelä M, Simojoki A, Hess WR, Sivonen K. 2018. Strains of the toxic and bloom-forming Nodularia spumigena (cyanobacteria) can degrade methylphosphonate and release methane. ISME J 12:1619–1630.
34.
Sosa OA, Burrell TJ, Wilson ST, Foreman RK, Karl DM, Repeta DJ. 2020. Phosphonate cycling supports methane and ethylene supersaturation in the phosphate-depleted western North Atlantic Ocean. Limnol Oceanogr 65:2443–2459.
35.
Yao M, Henny C, Maresca JA. 2016. Freshwater bacteria release methane as a by-product of phosphorus acquisition. Appl Environ Microbiol 82:6994–7003.
36.
Wang Q, Dore JE, McDermott TR. 2017. Methylphosphonate metabolism by Pseudomonas sp. populations contributes to the methane oversaturation paradox in an oxic freshwater lake. Environ Microbiol 19:2366–2378.
37.
Li W, Dore JE, Steigmeyer AJ, Cho Y, Kim O, Liu Y, Morgan‐Kiss RM, Skidmore ML, Priscu JC. 2020. Methylphosphonate metabolism by Pseudomonas sp. populations contributes to the methane oversaturation paradox in an oxic freshwater Lake. Limnol Oceanogr 65:143–156.
38.
Ellis BK, Stanford JA, Goodman D, Stafford CP, Gustafson DL, Beauchamp DA, Chess DW, Craft JA, Deleray MA, Hansen BS. 2011. Long-term effects of a trophic cascade in a large lake ecosystem. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:1070–1075.
39.
Elser JJ, Devlin SP, Yu J, Baumann A, Church MJ, Dore JE, Hall RO, Hollar M, Johnson T, Vick-Majors T, White C. 2022. Sustained stoichiometric imbalance and its ecological consequences in a large oligotrophic lake. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 119:e2202268119.
40.
Dodds WK, Johnson KR, Priscu JC. 1989. Simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus deficiency in natural phytoplankton assemblages: theory, empirical evidence, and implications for lake management. Lake Reserv Manag 5:21–26.
41.
Dodds WK, Priscu JC. 1990. A comparison of methods for assessment of nutrient deficiency of phytoplankton in a large oligotrophic lake. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:2328–2338.
42.
Spencer CN, Ellis ABK. 1998. Role of nutrients and zooplankton in regulation of phytoplankton in Flathead Lake (Montana, U.S.A.), a large oligotrophic lake. Freshwater Biology 39:755–763.
43.
Spencer CN, Ellis BK. 1990. Co-limitation by phosphorus and nitrogen, and effects of zooplankton mortality, on phytoplankton in Flathead Lake, Montana, U.S.A. SIL Proceedings, 1922-2010 24:206–209.
44.
Friedrich MW. 2005. Methyl-coenzyme M reductase genes: unique functional markers for methanogenic and anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaea. Meth. Enzymol 397:428–442.
45.
Sheik CS, Natwora KE, Alexson EE, Callaghan JD, Sailer A, Schreiner KM, Steinman BA, Finkenbinder MS, Filstrup CT, Bramburger AJ. 2022. Dolichospermum blooms in Lake superior: DNA-based approach provides insight to the past, present and future of blooms. J Great Lakes Res 48:1191–1205.
46.
Henson MW, Lanclos VC, Faircloth BC, Thrash JC. 2018. Cultivation and genomics of the first freshwater SAR11 (LD12) isolate. ISME J 12:1846–1860.
47.
Newton RJ, Jones SE, Eiler A, McMahon KD, Bertilsson S. 2011. A guide to the natural history of freshwater lake bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 75:14–49.
48.
Salcher MM, Neuenschwander SM, Posch T, Pernthaler J. 2015. The ecology of pelagic freshwater methylotrophs assessed by a high-resolution monitoring and isolation campaign. ISME J 9:2442–2453.
49.
Neuenschwander SM, Ghai R, Pernthaler J, Salcher MM. 2018. Microdiversification in genome-streamlined ubiquitous freshwater Actinobacteria. ISME J 12:185–198.
50.
Tsementzi D, Rodriguez-R LM, Ruiz-Perez CA, Meziti A, Hatt JK, Konstantinidis KT. 2019. Ecogenomic characterization of widespread, closely-related SAR11 clades of the freshwater genus “Candidatus Fonsibacter” and proposal of Ca. Fonsibacter lacus sp. nov. Syst Appl Microbiol 42:495–505.
51.
Kirchman DL. 2002. The ecology of Cytophaga-Flavobacteria in aquatic environments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 39:91–100.
52.
Cai H, Jiang H, Krumholz LR, Yang Z, Neilan B. 2014. Bacterial community composition of size-fractioned aggregates within the phycosphere of cyanobacterial blooms in a eutrophic freshwater lake. PLoS ONE 9:e102879.
53.
Kim M, Shin B, Lee J, Park HY, Park W. 2019. Culture-independent and culture-dependent analyses of the bacterial community in the phycosphere of cyanobloom-forming Microcystis aeruginosa. Sci Rep 9:20416.
54.
Chen WM, Lin KR, Young CC, Sheu SY. 2017. Flectobacillus fontis sp. nov., isolated from a freshwater spring. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 67:336–342.
55.
Hahn MW, Moore ER, Höfle MG. 1999. Bacterial filament formation, a defense mechanism against flagellate grazing, is growth rate controlled in bacteria of different phyla. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:25–35.
56.
Corno G, Jürgens K. 2006. Direct and indirect effects of protist predation on population size structure of a bacterial strain with high phenotypic plasticity. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:78–86.
57.
Simek K, Weinbauer MG, Hornák K, Jezbera J, Nedoma J, Dolan JR. 2007. Grazer and virus-induced mortaility of bacterioplankton accelerates development of Flectobacillus populations in a freshwater community. Environ Microbiol 9:789–800.
58.
Justice SS, Hunstad DA, Cegelski L, Hultgren SJ. 2008. Morphological plasticity as a bacterial survival strategy. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:162–168.
59.
Fixen KR, Starkenburg SR, Hovde BT, Johnson SL, Deodato CR, Daligault HE, Davenport KW, Harwood CS, Cattolico RA. 2016. Genome sequences of eight bacterial species found in coculture with the haptophyte Chrysochromulina tobin. Genome Announc 4:e01162-16.
60.
Chapman JA, Kirkness EF, Simakov O, Hampson SE, Mitros T, Weinmaier T, Rattei T, Balasubramanian PG, Borman J, Busam D, et al. 2010. The dynamic genome of Hydra. Nature 464:592–596.
61.
Pietschke C, Treitz C, Forêt S, Schultze A, Künzel S, Tholey A, Bosch TCG, Fraune S. 2017. Host modification of a bacterial quorum-sensing signal induces a phenotypic switch in bacterial symbionts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:E8488–E8497.
62.
Kim M, Oh H-S, Park S-C, Chun J. 2014. Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 64:346–351.
63.
Olm MR, Crits-Christoph A, Diamond S, Lavy A, Matheus Carnevali PB, Banfield JF. 2020. Consistent metagenome-derived metrics verify and delineate bacterial species boundaries. mSystems 5:e00731-19.
64.
Dreher TW, Davis EW, Mueller RS. 2021. Complete genomes derived by directly sequencing freshwater bloom populations emphasize the significance of the genus level ADA clade within the Nostocales. Harmful Algae 103:102005.
65.
Siani R, Stabl G, Gutjahr C, Schloter M, Radl V. 2021. Acidovorax pan-genome reveals specific functional traits for plant beneficial and pathogenic plant-associations. Microb Genom 7:000666.
66.
Du J, Liu Y, Zhu H. 2022. Genome-based analyses of the genus Acidovorax: proposal of the two novel genera Paracidovorax gen. nov., Paenacidovorax gen. nov. and the reclassification of Acidovorax antarcticus as Comamonas Antarctic comb. nov. and emended description of the genus Acidovorax. Arch Microbiol 205:42.
67.
Donis D, Flury S, Stöckli A, Spangenberg JE, Vachon D, McGinnis DF. 2017. Full-scale evaluation of methane production under oxic conditions in a mesotrophic lake. Nat Commun 8:1661.
68.
Sosa OA, Repeta DJ, DeLong EF, Ashkezari MD, Karl DM. 2019. Phosphate-limited ocean regions select for bacterial populations enriched in the carbon-phosphorus lyase pathway for phosphonate degradation. Environ Microbiol 21:2402–2414.
69.
Villarreal-Chiu JF, Quinn JP, McGrath JW. 2012. The genes and enzymes of phosphonate metabolism by bacteria, and their distribution in the marine environment. Front Microbiol 3:19.
70.
Dyhrman ST, Chappell PD, Haley ST, Moffett JW, Orchard ED, Waterbury JB, Webb EA. 2006. Phosphonate utilization by the globally important marine diazotroph Trichodesmium. Nature 439:68–71.
71.
Born DA, Ulrich EC, Ju K-S, Peck SC, van der Donk WA, Drennan CL. 2017. Structural basis for methylphosphonate biosynthesis. Science 358:1336–1339.
72.
Ilikchyan IN, McKay RML, Zehr JP, Dyhrman ST, Bullerjahn GS. 2009. Detection and expression of the phosphonate transporter gene phnD in marine and freshwater picocyanobacteria. Environ Microbiol 11:1314–1324.
73.
Beversdorf LJ, White AE, Björkman KM, Letelier RM, Karl DM. 2010. Phosphonate metabolism of Trichodesmium IMS101 and the production of greenhouse gases. Limnol Oceanogr 55:1768–1778.
74.
Khatun S, Iwata T, Kojima H, Fukui M, Aoki T, Mochizuki S, Naito A, Kobayashi A, Uzawa R. 2019. Aerobic methane production by planktonic microbes in lakes. Sci Total Environ 696:133916.
75.
Sosa OA, Repeta DJ, Ferrón S, Bryant JA, Mende DR, Karl DM, DeLong EF. 2017. Isolation and characterization of bacteria that degrade phosphonates in marine dissolved organic matter. Front Microbiol 8:1786.
76.
Church MJ, Ducklow HW, Karl DM. 2002. Multiyear increases in dissolved organic matter inventories at Station ALOHA in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Limnol. Oceanogr 47:1–10.
77.
Bartosiewicz M, Venetz J, Läubli S, Sepúlveda Steiner O, Bouffard D, Zopfi J, Lehmann MF. 2023. Detritus-hosted methanogenesis sustains the methane paradox in an alpine lake. Limnol Oceanogr 68:248–264.
78.
Wang Q, Alowaifeer A, Kerner P, Balasubramanian N, Patterson A, Christian W, Tarver A, Dore JE, Hatzenpichler R, Bothner B, McDermott TR. 2021. Aerobic bacterial methane synthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118:e2019229118.
79.
Günthel M, Klawonn I, Woodhouse J, Bižić M, Ionescu D, Ganzert L, Kümmel S, Nijenhuis I, Zoccarato L, Grossart HP, Tang KW. 2020. Photosynthesis-driven methane production in oxic lake water as an important contributor to methane emission. Limnol Oceanogr65:2853–2865.
80.
León-Palmero E, Contreras-Ruiz A, Sierra A, Morales-Baquero R, Reche I. 2020. Dissolved CH4 coupled to photosynthetic picoeukaryotes in oxic waters and to cumulative chlorophyll a in anoxic waters of reservoirs. Biogeosciences 17:3223–3245.
81.
Bizic M. 2021. Phytoplankton photosynthesis: an unexplored source of biogenic methane emission from oxic environments. J. Plankton Res 43:822–830.
82.
Murase J, Sakai Y, Sugimoto A, Okubo K, Sakamoto M. 2003. Sources of dissolved methane in Lake biwa. Limnology 4:91–99.
83.
Hofmann H, Federwisch L, Peeters F. 2010. Wave-induced release of methane: littoral zones as a source of methane in lakes. Limnol Oceanogr55:1990–2000.
84.
Peeters F, Encinas Fernandez J, Hofmann H. 2019. Sediment fluxes rather than oxic methanogenesis explain diffusive CH4 emissions from lakes and reservoirs. Sci Rep 9:243.
85.
Tsunogai U, Miyoshi Y, Matsushita T, Komatsu DD, Ito M, Sukigara C, Nakagawa F, Maruo M. 2020. Dual stable isotope characterization of excess methane in oxic waters of a mesotrophic lake. Limnol Oceanogr 65:2937–2952.
86.
Schlitzer R. 2018. Ocean Data View, https://odv.awi.de.
87.
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120.
88.
Li D, Liu CM, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam TW. 2015. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31:1674–1676.
89.
Langmead B, Salzberg SL. 2012. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9:357–359.
90.
Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R, 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup. 2009. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079.
91.
Hyatt D, Chen G-L, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. 2010. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 11:119.
92.
Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Morishima K. 2016. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J Mol Biol 428:726–731.
93.
Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410.
94.
Edgar RC. 2004. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32:1792–1797.
95.
Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. 2010. FastTree 2 – Approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 5:e9490.
96.
Letunic I, Bork P. 2021. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 49:W293–W296.
97.
Smith RC, Tyler JE. 1967. Optical properties of clear natural water. J. Opt. Soc. Am 57:589.
98.
Laws EA, DiTullio GR, Carder KL, Betzer PR, Hawes S. 1990. Primary production in the deep blue sea. Deep Sea Res Part. A. Oceanogr Res Pap 37:715–730.
99.
Holm-Hansen O, Lorenzen CJ, Holmes RW, Strickland JDH. 1965. Fluorometric determination of chlorophyll. ICES J Mar Sci 30:3–15.
100.
Seemann T. 2013. barrnap 0.9: rapid ribosomal RNA prediction. https://github.com/tseemann/barrnap
101.
Pruesse E, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. 2012. SINA: accurate high-throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics 28:1823–1829.
102.
Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K, Fuchs BM, Ludwig W, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. 2007. SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res 35:7188–7196.
103.
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Szoecs E, Wagner H. 2020. Vegan: community ecology package, p 5. In R package version 2
104.
West PT, Probst AJ, Grigoriev IV, Thomas BC, Banfield JF. 2018. Genome-reconstruction for eukaryotes from complex natural microbial communities. Genome Res 28:569–580.
105.
Kang DD, Li F, Kirton E, Thomas A, Egan R, An H, Wang Z. 2019. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 7:e7359.
106.
Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. 2013. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 29:1072–1075.
107.
Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. 2015. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isoilates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 25:1043–1055.
108.
Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D, Reddy TBK, Schulz F, Jarett J, Rivers AR, Eloe-Fadrosh EA, et al. 2017. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol 35:725–731.
109.
Chaumeil P-A, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. 2019. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36:1925–1927.
110.
Arkin AP, Cottingham RW, Henry CS, Harris NL, Stevens RL, Maslov S, Dehal P, Ware D, Perez F, Canon S, et al. 2018. KBase: the United States department of energy systems biology knowledgebase. Nat Biotechnol 36:566–569.
111.
Seemann T. 2014. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30:2068–2069.
112.
Yoon S-H, Ha S-M, Lim J, Kwon S, Chun J. 2017. A large-scale evaluation of algorithms to calculate average nucleotide identity. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 110:1281–1286.
113.
Evans KA, Ranieri JR, Peoples LM, Wear EK, Church MJ. Mixing-driven changes in distributions and abundances of planktonic microorganisms in a large oligotrophic lake. Submitted
114.
Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, Alexander H, Alm EJ, Arumugam M, Asnicar F, et al. 2019. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol 37:1091.
115.
Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. 2016. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods 13:581–583.
116.
Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. 2013. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D590–D596.
117.
McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. 2013. Phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One 8:e61217.
118.
R Core Team. 2020. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Volume 89Number 1221 December 2023
eLocator: e01097-23
Editor: Jennifer B. Glass, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
PubMed: 38032216

History

Received: 28 June 2023
Accepted: 11 October 2023
Published online: 30 November 2023

Keywords

  1. methane
  2. methylphosphonate
  3. lake
  4. freshwater
  5. Acidovorax
  6. phosphorus

Data Availability

All sequence data are publicly available at NCBI under BioProject accession number PRJNA948362.

Contributors

Authors

Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana, USA
John E. Dore
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Evan M. Bilbrey
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana, USA
Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho, USA
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana, USA
Department of Biological Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA
John R. Ranieri
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana, USA
Kate A. Evans
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana, USA
Abigail M. Ross
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana, USA
Shawn P. Devlin
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana, USA
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana, USA

Editor

Jennifer B. Glass
Editor
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Notes

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note:

  • For recently published articles, the TOTAL download count will appear as zero until a new month starts.
  • There is a 3- to 4-day delay in article usage, so article usage will not appear immediately after publication.
  • Citation counts come from the Crossref Cited by service.

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Figures and Media

Figures

Media

Tables

Share

Share

Share the article link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share on social media

American Society for Microbiology ("ASM") is committed to maintaining your confidence and trust with respect to the information we collect from you on websites owned and operated by ASM ("ASM Web Sites") and other sources. This Privacy Policy sets forth the information we collect about you, how we use this information and the choices you have about how we use such information.
FIND OUT MORE about the privacy policy