Microbial consortia in salt marsh sediments are sequentially buried over millennia and genomic complementarity analysis indicates an important role in complex carbon decomposition

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Vineis et al. examined the structure and functional potential of microbial communities along a vertical sediment profile of a salt marsh, using a genome-centric metagenomic approach. They attempted to test whether (1) the microbial communities within dynamic upper layers contain genomes with diverse functional potential, (2) the energy limited deeper sediments contain microbial consortia assembled to metabolise complex carbon, and (3) microbial compositional changes in the low energy sediments mirror the burial processes observed in marine environments with similar energetic limitations. Results revealed a core microbial consortia that contains a collective metabolic potential for complex carbon and aromatics degradation, suggesting putative syntrophic interactions. Besides, the recovery of MAGs assembled independently from multiple depths in the same core and the consistent relative abundance structure of MAGs within co-occurrence network modules together suggest burial process as a likely mechanism for microbial assembly.

Strengths:

(1) Two long sediment cores (down to 240 cm deep) were collected in this study, allowing investigation of the less well characterised subsurface microbiome in salt marsh.

(2) A genome-centric metagenomic approach was employed here, which provides information on both the structure and functional potential of the salt marsh sediment microbiome, which is not possible in commonly performed 16S rRNA-based surveys.

Weaknesses:

(1) In both the abstract and conclusion, the authors claimed that results from this study provide a "mechanistic understanding" of the assembly and distribution of the microbial communities in salt marsh sediment (P2, L31 and P35, L645-649). However, both claims are speculative and not supported by solid evidence. Firstly, the genomic data presented in this study and supplementary physical properties of sediments in the broader area are not enough to make a solid claim (that appears in the title) on microbial assembly being governed by a burial process. Alternative explanations include residual bioturbation, slow porewater advection, etc. Therefore, this remains an interesting hypothesis unless additional evidence is provided to rule out the alternative explanations. Similarly, the claim on the detailed syntrophic interactions among members within a co-occurrence network module (e.g. P36, L649-652) is purely speculative and warrants functional validation experiments to prove.

(2) A major aim of this work was to study complex carbon degradation. However, neither CAZymes, the first-line carbon degradation enzymes, nor peptidases, which can be important contributors to carbon degradation at depth, was examined here. METABOLIC, which the authors used for functional annotation of MAGs, by default generates peptidases outputs and can be easily integrated here.

(3) No geochemical data is available to provide context for the genomic analysis here. Without such information, readers cannot even tell whether the surface sediment samples were oxic or anoxic. A reference to a PhD thesis is provided (P6, L126) but it would be most helpful to extract relevant data from there and provide as a supplementary table.

(4) A single metagenomic binning tool, CONCOCT, was used in this study, which very likely has resulted in a limited number of MAGs recovered. More (high-quality) MAGs are expected with the use of additional binners and a bin consolidation procedure.

(5) Several terminologies are misleading here. Firstly, the term "co-occurring" or "co-located" microbes or MAGs (e.g. P1, L19 and P31, L537) can be misleading as it could imply a close spatial relationship. However, co-occurrence networks rely on correlations of (relative) abundance and show statistical associations instead of direct spatial or physical relationships. I would suggest alternative names such as co-abundant or statistically associated microbes. Secondly, the term "persistent conversion of soil organic carbon" (P36, L654) in the conclusion is also misleading as it implies an active process, which cannot be tested without metatranscriptomics or metaproteomics data.

(6) Based on a NMDS plot of KEGG IDs (Figure 4B), the authors claimed that the functional potential among MAGs in modules 1, 2 and 7 was very similar (P18, L346). However, the dispersions of modules 1 and 2 were just too large. A proper statistical test, such as PERMANOVA, should be used to support the claim.

(7) Genome-scale metabolic networks was analysed using Metag2Metabo (M2M) and results were discussed in detail (P26, L453-466). However, the source data should be provided in a supplementary table to show what metabolites are producible by which MAGs.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This work provides a detailed metabolic reconstruction of sediment microbiomes along a depth profile in a Spartina patens salt marsh in Massachusetts, USA. Using a combination of genome reconstruction, co-occurrence network analysis, and metabolic profiling, the authors describe the metabolic potential of co-occurring microbial consortia in understudied deep sediments.

Major strengths of this study include the detailed metagenomic characterization of the understudied deep marsh sediments. The authors recovered genomes representing a substantial portion of the deep sediment microbiome (up to ~60%) and provided an initial explanation of pathways related to the potential for organic carbon decomposition in this environment. Of particular interest is the capability of the deep sediment microbiome to process aromatic organic compounds, highlighting the need for a collaborative consortium to carry out their decomposition. Improved understanding of the microbial transformation of deep sediment organic carbon in blue carbon ecosystems is vital to better understand the fate of this large carbon pool in the face of climate change.

However, I have a few concerns in the interpretation of the results, and in the case of the surface sediments there is a lack of strong evidence in my opinion.

(1) A stronger ecological interpretation is needed regarding the meaning of the co-occurrence network analysis. The authors correctly note that their analysis identifies groups of co-occurring genomes, which may indicate shared niche space, not necessarily interspecific ecological interactions (as the authors imply for instance in lines 423-425). When performing network analysis using samples from the entire sediment profile (0-240 cm), they identified consortia that co-vary in relative abundance along the depth gradient most likely because of shared environmental filtering forces, such as changes in redox potential and sediment chemistry. Supplementary Figure S4 showing that different modules have distinct abundance distributions along the sediment profile supports this idea. Being that the case, I would like the authors to define the ecological significance of the "connector hub". Is it merely taxa that is prevalent in the whole sediment profile? Since the modules are physically separated (in different sediment depth layers), they are not really interacting between each other. As it stands, it is not clear why the authors decide to study connector hubs in greater detail, along with their subnetworks.

(2) I question if the lack of network modules in the surface sediment is really a consequence of non-significant interspecific ecological interactions and not the result of methodological biases. The low MAG recovery and thus short read recruitment in surface-level metagenomes may hinder the ability of the authors to identify co-varying microorganisms in the surface sediment. The high diversity of the surface sediment prevents proper assembly of the surface microbiome. I would also argue that as redox potential declines sharply in salt marsh sediments just below the root surface, the microbial community in the first few centimeter's changes rapidly and is significantly different from the more stable deep sediment microbiome. Due to the sampling design, the study has less representation of the surface layer (only 0-30 cm, while the cores extend down to 240 cm). Grouping sediment microbiomes by depth based on similarity in their sequence space (e.g., Mash) or functional profile (e.g., KEGG annotation) before performing network analysis could help to better infer ecological relationships within the distinct ecological niches of the marsh sediment profile, rather than performing a single network analysis of all samples combined.

(3) Normalizing the relative abundance of MAGs by dividing by the total reads mapping to a particular sample can be misleading due to differences in recruitment levels across samples (and depths). A better approach would be to normalize by metagenome library size, or preferably by genome equivalents (e.g., using MicrobeCensus) or a similar approach.