Skip to main content

Table 4 Experimentally measured and computationally calculated yield values for strain SCM1 and other ammonia-oxidizing organisms

From: Genome-scale metabolic model analysis indicates low energy production efficiency in marine ammonia-oxidizing archaea

Strains

Original experimental data

Biomass/NH4+ yield (gDW mol−1)

Biomass/NH4+ yield (mol mol−1)c

ATP/Biomass yield (mol g−1)

ATP/NH4+ yield (mol mol−1)

References

Nitrosopumilus maritimus SCM1

3.49 × 1013 cells mol−1 NH4+

0.698

1:37

0.213d

0.149

Löscher et al. (2012)

Nitrosopumilus maritimus SCM1

5 × 1013 cells mol−1 NH4+

1.00a

1:26

0.213d

0.213

Konneke et al. (2005)

Nitrosopumilus maritimus SCM1

1.3 gDW mol−1 NH4+

1.3

1:20

0.213d

0.276

Konneke et al. (2014)

Nitrosopumilus maritimus SCM1

0.027 h−1/26.5 mmol NH4+ g DW−1 h−1

1.02

1:25

0.213d

0.217

Martens-Habbena et al. (2009)

Strian PS0

5.31 × 1013 cells mol−1 NH4+

1.06a

1:25

0.213d

0.226

Qin et al. (2014)

Strian HCA1

5.50 × 1013 cells mol−1 NH4+

1.10a

1:24

0.213d

0.234

Qin et al. (2014)

Nitrosopumilus piranensis D3C, Nitrosopumilus adriaticus NF5

6 × 1013 cells mol−1 NH4+

1.20a

1:22

0.213d

0.256

Bayer et al. (2016)

Nitrosomonas europaea ATCC 19718

0.171 ATP/NH4+ (6% proton circulating in the chain)

0.718b

1:36

0.238e

0.171

Poughon et al. (2001)

  1. a20 fg dry weight cell−1 for strain SCM1 was used to convert the cell abundance figures to dry cell weights. This value was also used in the calculation for strains PS0 HCA1 D3C and NF5 due to their similar cell shapes and sizes (Qin et al. 2014)
  2. b194 fg dry weight cell−1 for N. europaea was used to convert the cell numbers to dry cell weights. The value for N. europaea was calculated based on the reported values of 120 fg protein dry weight cell−1 and 62% protein content (Martens-Habbena et al. 2009; Poughon et al. 2001)
  3. cCalculated from the biomass/NH4+ yield based on a molecular weight of 26 g mol−1 for biomass (Tijhuis et al. 1993)
  4. dCalculated from metabolic network model analysis
  5. eFrom the reference (Mangiapia and Scott 2016)