To conclude, the complementary interpretation of the diversity data with the reconstruction of the dominant metabolic processes allowed us (i) to monitor the dynamic response of
planktonic bacterial taxa to a coastal phytoplankton bloom down to genus level and (ii) to elucidate the adaptive and distinct response to successive ecological niches that allowed prokaryotic planktonic species to coexist in great detail. The following are the supplementary data related to this article. Supplementary Table S1. Overview of the raw sequencing data. We acknowledge HSP inhibitor Christine Klockow, Jack A. Gilbert (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA), Bernhard M. Fuchs (Max Planck Institute, Bremen, Germany), G. Gerdts from the Alfred Wegner Institute–Biologische Anstalt Helgoland (Helgoland, Germany) and
Jörg Peplies (Ribocon) for support and critical discussion of this work, E. Karamehmedovic and M. Meiners for helping with the laboratory work, and Johannes Werner (Max Planck Institute, Bremen, Germany) for submission of the sequencing data. Funding This work was supported by the Max Planck Society the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 03F0480D) and the Micro B3 project. The Micro B3 project is funded from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (Joint Call OCEAN.2011‐2: Marine microbial Alpelisib molecular weight diversity – new insights into marine ecosystems functioning and its biotechnological potential) under the grant agreement no 287589. “
“In molluscs the mantle epithelium is the tissue responsible for shell formation. The mantle creates the shell indirectly, with the mantle
epithelium not Farnesyltransferase touching the surface of calcification. Instead, the organic material (organic matrix) secreted by the mantle tissue is thought to be the regulator of shell calcification (Fougerouse et al., 2008). A number of proteins have been isolated from the organic matrix using biochemical and molecular approaches and their functions have been discussed based on their primary and predicted secondary structures, expression patterns and results from in vitro experiments (Miyamoto et al., 1996, Shen et al., 1997, Sudo et al., 1997, Samata et al., 1999, Kono et al., 2000, Mann et al., 2000, Miyashita et al., 2000, Weiss et al., 2001, Zhang et al., 2003, Tsukamoto et al., 2004 and Gotliv et al., 2005). It is generally conceived that due to a pearl having the same nacre constitution as the inside of a pearl oyster shell and because a cultured pearl is produced by surgical implantation of a mantle allograft from a donor oyster, that the shell matrix proteins responsible for nacreous shell formation produced by the mantle are also responsible for pearl formation (Farn, 1986). The relative genetic contribution from the donor and host oyster to nacre secretion, however, has not been defined.