Back to all available

Genomic insights into adaptations to survival and toxicity of cyanobacteria in hot springs: A study comprising cyanobacterial genomes from Europe, Iceland, and Central Asia

genomics
microbiology

Abstract

Aim of the study. Genomic resources for thermophilic cyanobacteria remain limited, hindering understanding of their ecology and adaptations to extreme high-temperature environments. This study characterizes the genomic features of thermophilic cyanobacteria from thermal springs, focusing on their strategies to cope with energy limitations and the genetic basis of secondary metabolite production.

Material and methods. We analyzed six newly assembled genomes, and compared them with reference genomes from thermophilic and mesophilic cyanobacteria. Functional gene analysis, genome size comparisons, and biosynthetic gene cluster (BGC) mining were performed to assess adaptations.

Results. Genome sizes varied substantially, with Hillbrichtia pamiria showing a notably reduced genome, whereas Calothrix thermalis and Thermoleptolyngbya hindakii were similar to or larger than related mesophiles. Secondary metabolite BGCs were generally reduced in thermophiles, especially in H. pamiria, although larger genomes retained diverse BGCs, including cyanotoxins, NRPS, RiPPs, and terpenes. Core functions, the Calvin cycle and nitrogen fixation, were conserved, while lineage-specific variation occurred in TCA cycle, sulfur assimilation, and denitrification genes. Amphirytos necridicus harbors features suggesting adaptation to low-energy environments, like alternative TCA cycle enzymes.

Conclusions and relevance. These findings expand the genomic and functional landscape of thermophilic cyanobacteria, reveal lineage-specific adaptations, and underscore the value of learning from these natural strategies for potential biotechnological applications.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].