[Last Update: June 28^th, 2018]

Other
Protoplanetary Disk Snowline Sublimation & Recondensation Simulation
Protoplanetary Disk Snowline Collision Simulation

Related Articles
“Mitochondrigeny”

About
About this Website
About the Author
Services & Rates
Contact Me

D. Jon Scott’s Website ► Science ► Physics ► Chemistry ► Biology ► Evolution

X-Philes:

Prokaryotic Extremophiles

Copyright © 2018 by Dustin Jon Scott
[Last Update: June 6^th, 2018]

Abstract

Part I

Extremophiles by Type

Part I.a.

Acidophiles & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Prokaryotic Neutriphiles

This group includes organisms capable of thriving in hyperacidic conditions, most of which have an optimal growth pH of 5 or lower (OGpH<5), although a few have an OGpH slightly above this (e.g., Nanoarchaeum equitans, OGpH=6) but can nonetheless be found flourishing in hyperacidic environments (pH=0.5-1.5).

Part I.a-1.)

Acidophiles & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Archaeal Neutriphiles

Part I.a-2.)

Acidophiles & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Bacterial Neutriphiles

Part I.a-3.)

Comparison of Acidophiles & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Neutriphiles

Part I.a-3A.)

Comparison of Acidophilic & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Prokaryotic Genera

**Described Genera**
Domain	Genus	Source	Ratio	N>H₀
Archaea 27/43 (62.79%)	Acidianus	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015	27:16	5.5 (25.58%)
	Acidiplasma	Zhang et al., 2015
	Aenigmarchaeum	Golyshina et al., 2017
	Cuniculiplasma	Golyshina et al. 2016
	Ferroplasma	Dopson et al.2003; Zhang et al., 2015
	Halarchaeum	()
	Candidatus Haloredivivus	Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Lainarchaeum	Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Mancarchaeum	()
	Metallosphaera	Johnson, 1998

	Candidatus Micrarchaeum	Baker et al., 2010
	Nanoarchaeum	Golyshina et al., 2017
	Nanobsidianus
	Nanopusillus
	Candidatus Nanosalina	Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nanosalinarum	Golyshina et al., 2017
	Nitrosopumilus	Lehtovirta-Morley et al., 2014
	Nitrosotalea	Lehtovirta-Morley et al., 2011 2014)
	Candidatus Parvarchaeum	Baker et al., 2010
	Picrophilus	Rampelotto, 2013, Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
	Stygiolobus	Johnson, 1998
	Sulfolobus	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
	Sulfurisphaera	()
	Sulfurococcus	Johnson, 1998
	Thermogymnomonas	()
	Thermoplasma	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
Bacteria 16/43 (37.21%)	Acetobacter	Johnson, 1998
	Acidiphilium	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015
	Acidithiobacillus	Johnson, 1998
	Acidobacterium	Johnson, 1998
	Acidimicrobium	Johnson, 1998
	Acidocella	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015
	Acidomonas	Johnson, 1998
	Alicyclobacillus	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015
	Bryocella	()
	Ferrimicrobium	Johnson, 1998
	Helicobacter
	Leptospirillum	Johnson, 1998; Lehtovirta-Morley et al., 2014
	Sulfobacillus	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015
	Telmatobacter	()
	Thiobacillus	Johnson, 1998
	Thiomonas	Johnson, 1998

**Generic goodness-of-fit**
Domain	Observed	H₀	O-H₀	(O-H₀)²	(O-H₀)²/H₀
Archaea	27/43 (62.79%)	21.5/43 (50%)	5.5 (12.79%)	30.25 (163.60%)	1.406976744186047 (3.27%)
Bacteria	16/43 (37.21%)	21.5/43 (50%)	-5.5 (-12.79%)	30.25 (163.60%)	1.406976744186047 (3.27%)
X²=					2.813953488372094
Df=					1
α/2=					?
X²_CV=					?

Part I.a-3B.)

Comparison of Acidophilic & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Prokaryotic Species

**Described Species**
Domain	Genus & Species	OGpH	pH range	Source	Ratio	N(50%)>H₀
Archaea 86/124 (69%)	Acidianus ambivalens	2.5	1-3.5	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015	86:38	38%
	Acidianus brierleyi	1.5-2	1-6	Johnson, 1998; Edwards et al., 2000; Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidianus convivator	<4	?	()
	Acidianus copahuensis	2.5-3	1-5	Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidianus infernus	2	1-5.5	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidianus manzaensis	1.2-2.5	1-5	Ding et al. 2011; Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidianus pozzuoliensis		?
	Acidianus sulfidivorans	0.8-1.4	0.35-3	Plumb et al. 2007; Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidianus tengchongensis	1.5-2.5	1-5.5	He et al. 2004; Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidianus sp. DSM 29099	?	?	Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidianus sp. RZ1	?	?	Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidiplasma aeolicum	1.4-1.6	0-4	Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidiplasma cupricumulans	1-1.2	0.4-1.8	Zhang et al., 2015
	Candidatus Aenigmarchaeum subterraneum	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Cenarchaeum symbiosum A	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Cuniculiplasma divulgatum	1-1.2	?	Golyshina et al. 2016
	Ferroplasma acidarmanus	1.2	0-2.5	Edwards et al., 2000, Dopson et al.2003; Zhang et al., 2015
	Ferroplasma acidiphilum	1.7	1.3-2.2	Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
	Ferroplasma acidiphilum BRGM4	?	?	Zhang et al., 2015
	Ferroplasma cyprexacervatum	<4	?	()
	Ferroplasma thermophilum	1	0.2-2.5	Zhang et al., 2015
	Halarchaeum acidiphilum	<4	?	()
	Candidatus Haloredivivus sp.	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Lainarchaeum andersonii	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Mancarchaeum acidiphilum	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Metallosphaera cuprina	3.5	2.5-5.5	Zhang et al., 2015
	Metallosphaera hakonensis	3	1-4	Zhang et al., 2015
	Metallosphaera prunae	2	1-4.5	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
	Metallosphaera sedula	2	1-4.5	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
	Metallosphaera yellowstonensis	2-3	1-4.5	Zhang et al., 2015
	Candidatus Micrarchaeum acidiphilum	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2010; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nanoarchaeum equitans	6*; 0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2010; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Nanobsidianus stetteri		?
	Nanopusillus acidilobi sp.		?
	Candidatus Nanosalina sp.	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2010; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nanosalinarum sp.	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2010; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosoarchaeum koreensis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosoarchaeum limnia	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosoarchaeum limnia	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosocosmicus oleophilus	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosopelagicus brevis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosopumilus maritimus	<4	?	Lehtovirta-Morley et al., 2014; Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosopumilus viennensis	<4	?	Lehtovirta-Morley et al., 2014
	Candidatus Nitrosopumilus sp. SJ	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosopumilus sp. NF5	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosopumilus sp. AR1	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosopumilus sp. AR2	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosopumilus salaria	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosopumilus sp. D3C	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrososphaera evergladensis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrososphaera viennensis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrososphaera gargensis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosotalea okcheonensis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosotalea sinensis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosotalea devanaterra	4-5	?	Lehtovirta-Morley et al., 2011 & 2014; Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosotalea bavarica	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosotenuis uzonensis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosotenuis chungbukensis	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Nitrosotenuis cloacae	<4	?	Herbold et al., 2017
	Candidatus Parvarchaeum acidiphilum	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2010; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Candidatus Parvarchaeum acidophilus	0.5-1.5	?	Baker et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2010; Golyshina et al., 2017
	Picrophilus sp.	1	?	(Baker-Austin & Dopson, 2007)
	Picrophilus oshimae	0.7-2.2	≥0-3.5	Rampelotto, 2013, Johnson, 1998
	Picrophilus torridus	0.06-0.07	≥0-3.5	Rampelotto, 2013, Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
Stygiolobus azoricus	2.5-3	1-5.5	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfolobus acidocaldarius	2-3	1-5.9	Johnson, 1998; Edwards et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfolobus hakonensis	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
Sulfolobus islandicus	<4	?	()
Sulfolobus metallicus	?	1-4.5	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfolobus mirabilis	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
Sulfolobus neozealandicus	?	?	()
Sulfolobus rivotinct	?	?	Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfolobus shibatae	3	?	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfolobus solfataricus	3	2-4	Johnson, 1998, Dopson (2003); Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfolobus tengchongensis	3.5	1.7-6.5	Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfolobus thuringiensis	?	?	()
Sulfolobus tokodaii	2.5-3	2-5	Dopson 2003; Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfolobus yangmingensis	4	2-6	Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfurisphaera ohwakuensis	2	1-5	Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfurococcus mirabilis	2-2.6	1-5.8	Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfurococcus yellowstonensis	2-2.6	1-5.5	Zhang et al., 2015
Sulfurococcus yellowstonii	?	?	Johnson, 1998
Thermococcus celer	5.8	?	Zhang et al., 2015
Thermogymnomonas acidocola	3	1.8-4	Zhang et al., 2015
Thermoplasma acidophilum	1.8	0.5-4	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
Thermoplasma volcanium	2	1-4	Johnson, 1998; Zhang et al., 2015
Bacteria 38/124 (31%)	Acetobacter aceti		?	Johnson, 1998
	Acidiphilium acidophilum (Thiobacillus acidophilus)	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
	Acidiphilium multivorum	<3	?	(Dopson 2003)
	Acidithiobacillus albertensis (Thiobacillus albertis)	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015
	Acidithiobacillus caldus (Thiobacillus caldus)	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidithiobacillus ferridurans	<4	?	()
	Acidithiobacillus ferriphilus	<4	?	()
	Acidithiobacillus ferrivorans	<4	?	(Fashola et al., 2015)
	Acidithiobacillus ferro(o)xidans (Thiobacillus ferrooxidans)	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidithiobacillus thioxidans (Thiobacillus thioxidans)	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
	Acidobacterium capsulatum	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015
	Acidimicrobium ferroxidans	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015
	Acidocella spp.	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
	Acidomonas methanolica	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
	Alicyclobacillus thermosulfidooxidans	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
	Alicyclobacillus thermosulfidooxidans (Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans)	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
	Bryocella elongata	<4	?	()
	Ferrimicrobium acidiphilum	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
	Ferrimicrobium acidiphilus	<3	?	Fashola et al., 2015
	Gallionella ferruginea		?	(Fashola et al., 2015)
	Helicobacter pylori		?
	Hydrogenobacter acidophilus		?	(Fashola et al., 2015)
	Leptospirillum ferriphilum	<3	?	Lehtovirta-Morley et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2015
	Leptospirillum ferro(o)xidans	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015
	Leptospirillum thermoferrooxidans	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
	Sulfobacillus acidophilus	<3	?	Johnson, 1998; Fashola et al., 2015
	Telmatobacter bradus	<4	?	()
	Thiobacillus acidophilus	<4	?	()
	Thiobacillus dentrificans		?	(Fashola et al., 2015)
	Thiobacillus organovorus	<4	?	()
	Thiobacillus prosperus	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
	Thiomonas cuprina (Thiobacillus cuprinus)	<3	?	Johnson, 1998
	Desulfovibrio sp.	?	?	Fashola et al., 2015
	Desulfomicrobium sp.	?	?	Fashola et al., 2015
	Desulfobulbus sp.	?	?	Fashola et al., 2015
	Desulfosarcina sp.	?	?	Fashola et al., 2015
	Desulfobacter sp.	?	?	Fashola et al., 2015
	Desulfotomaculum sp.	?	?	Fashola et al., 2015

**Specific goodness-of-fit**
Domain	Observed	Expected	O-E	(O-E)²	(O-E)²/E
Archaea	86	62	24	576	9.2903225806451
Bacteria	38	62	-24	576	9.2903225806451
Df=					1
X² crit=					3.41
X²=					18.5806451612902

**Specific % goodness-of-fit**
Domain	Observed %	Expected %	O-E	(O-E)²	(O-E)²/E
Archaea	69	50	19	361	7.22
Bacteria	31	50	-19	361	7.22
Df=					1
X² crit=					3.41
X²=					14.44

Ding et al., 2011
Dopson et al., 2003
Baker et al., 2010
Plumb et al., 2007
Whitman et al., 1999

"Nitrosotalea is an abundant, globally distributed genus of AOA found in acidic soils (Gubry-Rangin et al., 2011). Thirty per cent of the world's soils are considered acidic (pH < 5.5; von Uexk�ll & Mutert, 1995), and ammonia oxidation in low pH soils is dominated by AOA, rather than AOB (Gubry-Rangin et al., 2010; Lehtovirta-Morley et al., 2011)."

Craig W. Herbold, Laura E. Lehtovirta-Morley, Man-Young Jung, Nico Jehmlich, Bela Hausmann, Ping Han, Alexander Loy, Michael Pester, Luis A. Sayavedra-Soto, Sung-Keun Rhee, James I. Prosser, Graeme W. Nicol, Michael Wagner and Cecile Gubry-Rangin. Ammonia-oxidising archaea living at low pH: Insights from comparative genomics. Environmental Microbiology (2017) 19(12), 4939�4952

Part I.b.

Alkaliphiles

Part I.b-1.)

Archaeal Alkaliphiles

Part I.b-2.)

Bacterial Alkaliphiles

Part I.b-3.)

Comparison of Alkaliphilic Prokaryotes

Part I.b-3A.)

Comparison of Alkaliphilic Genera

Described Genera
Domain	Genus & Species	A	B	Ratio	%>H₀
Archaea	Halalkalicoccus	15/16 (93.75%)	1/16 (6.25%)	87.5%	16:1
	Haloarcula
	Halobaculum
	Halobiforma
	Haloferax
	Halorubrum gandharaense
	Nanobacterium gregoryi
	Natronococcus amylolyticus
	Natronococcus jeotgali
	Natronococcus occultus
	Natronolimnobius
	Natronomonas pharaonis
	Natronorubrum
	Thermococcus alkaliphilus
	Thermococcus acidaminovorans
	Methanohalophilus
Bacteria	(Coming Soon)

Part I.b-3A.)

Comparison of Alkaliphilic Species

Described Species
Domain	Genus & Species	A	B	Ratio	%>H₀
Archaea	Halalkalicoccus	15/16 (93.75%)	1/16 (6.25%)	16:1	87.5%
	Haloarcula
	Halobaculum
	Halobiforma
	Haloferax
	Halorubrum gandharaense
	Nanobacterium gregoryi
	Natronococcus amylolyticus
	Natronococcus jeotgali
	Natronococcus occultus
	Natronolimnobius
	Natronomonas pharaonis
	Natronorubrum
	Thermococcus alkaliphilus
	Thermococcus acidaminovorans
	Methanohalophilus
Bacteria	(Coming Soon)

Elis Watanable Nogueira, Elize Ayumi Hayash, Enne Alves, Claudio Ant�nio de Andrade Lima, Maria Talarico Adorno, Gunther Brucha. Characterization of Alkaliphilic Bacteria Isolated from Bauxite Residue in the Southern Region of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology vol.60 Curitiba 2017 Epub May 11, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-4324-2017160215

Part I.c.

Barophiles

Part I.c-1.)

Archaeal Barophiles

Part I.c-2.)

Bacterial Barophiles

Part I.c-3.)

Comparison of Barophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.c-3A.)

Comparison of Barophilic Genera

Domain	Genus	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Pyrococcus	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Salinicola	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Pyrococcus abyssi	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
	Pyrococcus endeavori
	Pyrococcus furiosis
	Pyrococcus glycovorans
	Pyrococcus horikoshii
	Pyrococcus woesei
Bacteria	Salinicola salarius

(Gareeb & Setati, 2009)
(Pikuta et al., 2017)

Part I.d.

Halophiles

Part I.d-1.)

Archaeal Halophiles

Part I.d-2.)

Bacterial Halophiles

Part I.d-3.)

Comparison of Halophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.d-3A.)

Comparison of Halophilic Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Pyrococcus abyssi	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
	Pyrococcus endeavori
	Pyrococcus furiosis
	Pyrococcus glycovorans
	Pyrococcus horikoshii
	Pyrococcus woesei
Bacteria	Salinicola salarius

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Part I.e.

Haloalkaliphiles

Part I.e-1.)

Archaeal Haloalkiphiles

Part I.e-2.)

Bacterial Haloalkaliphiles

Part I.e-3.)

Comparison of Haloaaliphilic Prokaryotes

Part I.e-3A.)

Comparison of Haloaliphilic Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Part I.f.

Hyperthermophiles

Part I.f-1.)

Archaeal Hyperthermophiles

Part I.f-2.)

Bacterial Hyperthermophiles

Part I.f-3.)

Comparison of Hyperthermophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.f-3A.)

Comparison of Hyperthermophilic Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Aeropyrum pernix	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
	Pyrolobus fumaril
	Pyrococcus furiosus
	Archaeoglobus fulgidis
	Methanococcus jannaschii
	Stygiolobus azoricus
	Sulfolobus acidocaldarius
	Sulfolobus islandicus
	Sulfolobus neozealandicus
	Sulfolobus shibatae
	Sulfolobus solfataricus
	Sulfolobus tengchongensis
	Sulfolobus thuringiensis
	Sulfolobus tokodaii
	Sulfolobus yangmingensis
	Methanopyrus kandleri
	"Strain 121"
Bacteria	Aquifex aeolicus
	Geothermobacterium ferrireducens
	Theromotoga maritima

Part I.g.

Thermoacidophiles

Part I.g-1.)

Archaeal Thermoacidophiles

Part I.g-2.)

Bacterial Thermoacidophiles

Part I.g-3.)

Comparison of Thermoacidophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.g-3A.)

Comparison of Thermoacidophilic Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Part I.h.

Thermobarophiles

Part I.h-1.)

Archaeal Thermobarophiles

Part I.h-2.)

Bacterial Thermobarophiles

Part I.h-3.)

Comparison of Thermobarophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.h-3A.)

Comparison of Thermobarophilic Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Part I.i.

Radioresistant Prokaryotes

Part I.i-1.)

Radioresistant Archaea

Part I.i-2.)

Radioresistant Bacteria

Part I.i-3.)

Comparison of Radioresistant Prokaryotes

Part I.i-3A.)

Comparison of Radioresistant Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Pyrococcus furiosis	1:4	1/5 (20%	4/5 (80%)	60%
	Haloferax volcanii
	Natrialba magadii
	Thermococcus gammatolerans
Bacteria	Bacillus subtilis
	Bacillus atropheus
	Bacillus thuringiensis
	Bacillus cereus
	Bacillus megaterium
	Deinococcus radiodurans
	Escherichia coli
	Rubrobacter sp.
	Achromobacter sp.
	Acinetobacter sp.
	Alcaligenes sp.
	Enterococcus sp.
	Micrococcus sp.
	Pseudomonas sp.
	Staphylococcus sp.
	Streptococcus sp.

(Abrevaya et al., 2011)
(Bucker & Horneck, 1970)
(Horneck, 1971)
(Nicholson, et al. 2005)

Part I.j.

Xerophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.j-1.)

Archaeal Xerophiles

Part I.j-2.)

Bacterial Xerophiles

Part I.j-3.)

Comparison of Xerophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.j-3A.)

Comparison of Xerophilic Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Bacteria	Bacillus subtilis	2:0	0/2 (0%)	1/1 (100%)	100%
Bacteria	Escherichia coli	2:0	0/2 (0%)	1/1 (100%)	100%

Part I.k.

Cryophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.k-1.)

Archaeal Cryophiles

Part I.k-2.)

Bacterial Cryophiles

Part I.k-3.)

Comparison of Cryophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.k-3A.)

Comparison of Cryophilic Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Bacteria	Bacillus subtilis	2:0	0/2 (0%)	1/1 (100%)	100%
Bacteria	Escherichia coli	2:0	0/2 (0%)	1/1 (100%)	100%

Part I.l.

Hypobarotolerant Prokaryotes

Part I.l-1.)

Hypobarotolerant Archaea

Part I.l-2.)

Hypobarotolerant Bacteria

Part I.l-3.)

Comparison of Hypobarotolerant Prokaryotes

Part I.l-3A.)

Comparison of Hypobarotolerant Genera

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Part I.m.

Part II

Trends in Specializations of Prokaryotic Extremophiles

Part II.a.

Planetary versus Spacial Extremes

If the Archaea evolved on Earth as the Bacteria were evolving on Mars, and there was occasional cross-contamination which intensified during the LHB, then we should expect extremophiles which specialize in tolerating spacial extremes, like cold, drouth, low pressure, radioactivity, hyperacceleration and hypergravity, to be found mostly among the Bacteria, while extremophiles among the Archaea should be expected more often to specialize in tolerating decidedly planetary extremes such as heat, high pressure, acidity, salinity, and alkalinity.

Part II.a-1.)

Totals for Planetary Extremes

General count
Extreme	Domain	Number	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Acidity	Archaea	18	18:7	7/25 (28%)	18/25 (72%)	44%
Acidity	Bacteria	7	18:7	7/25 (28%)	18/25 (72%)	44%
Alkalinity	Archaea	6	16:1	1/16 (6.25%)	15/16 (93.75%)	87.5%
Alkalinity	Bacteria	1	16:1	1/16 (6.25%)	15/16 (93.75%)	87.5%
Salinity	Archaea
Salinity	Bacteria
High Pressure	Archaea	6	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
High Pressure	Bacteria	1	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
Heat	Archaea	18	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
Heat	Bacteria	3	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
Total	Archaea
Total	Bacteria

Archaeal genera goodness-of-fit
Extremophile type	Observed	Expected	O-E	(O-E)²	(O-E)²/E
Acidophilic	18	12.5	5.5	30.25	2.42
Alkaliphilic	16	8	8	64	8
Barophilic	6	3.5	2.5	6.25	1.79
Halophilic
Haloalkaliphilic
Hyperthermophilic	18	10.5	7.5	56.25	5.36
Thermoacidophilic
Thermobarophilic
X²=

Special count
Extreme	Domain	Number	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Acidity	Archaea	18	18:7	7/25 (28%)	18/25 (72%)	44%
Acidity	Bacteria	7	18:7	7/25 (28%)	18/25 (72%)	44%
Alkalinity	Archaea	6	16:1	1/16 (6.25%)	15/16 (93.75%)	87.5%
Alkalinity	Bacteria	1	16:1	1/16 (6.25%)	15/16 (93.75%)	87.5%
Salinity	Archaea
Salinity	Bacteria
High Pressure	Archaea	6	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
High Pressure	Bacteria	1	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
Heat	Archaea	18	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
Heat	Bacteria	3	6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
Total	Archaea
Total	Bacteria

Archaeal species goodness-of-fit
Extremophile type	Observed	Expected	O-E	(O-E)²	(O-E)²/E
Acidophilic	18	12.5	5.5	30.25	2.42
Alkaliphilic	16	8	8	64	8
Barophilic	6	3.5	2.5	6.25	1.79
Halophilic
Haloalkaliphilic
Hyperthermophilic	18	10.5	7.5	56.25	5.36
Thermoacidophilic
Thermobarophilic
X²=

Part II.a-2.)

Totals for Spacial Extremes

Domain	Genus & Species	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Archaea	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%
Bacteria	Blank	1:1	1/2 (50%)	1/2 (50%)	0%

Extreme	Domain	Number	Ratio	σ	ρ	%>H₀
Radioactivity	Archaea	4	4:1	1/5 (20%)	4/5 (80%)	60%
Radioactivity	Bacteria	20	4:1	1/5 (20%)	4/5 (80%)	60%
Hyperacceleration / Hypergravity	Archaea
Hyperacceleration / Hypergravity	Bacteria	2
Low Pressure	Archaea
Low Pressure	Bacteria
Cold	Archaea
Cold	Bacteria
Drouth	Archaea	0	2:0	0/2 (0%)	1/1 (100%)	100%
Drouth	Bacteria	2	2:0	0/2 (0%)	1/1 (100%)	100%
Total	Archaea
Total	Bacteria

Part II.a-3.)

Totals for Terrestrial versus Spacial Extremes

Extreme	Type	Ratio	σ_(%)<(ρ=100%) ≈	ρ ≈	%>H₀
Acidity	Planetary	18:7	7/25 (28%)	18/25 (72%)	44%
Alkalinity		16:1	1/16 (6.25%)	15/16 (93.75%)	87.5%
Salinity
High Pressure		6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
Heat		6:1	1/7 (14%)	6/7 (86%)	72%
Radioactivity	Spacial	1:4	1/5 (20%)	4/5 (80%)	60%
Hyperacceleration / Hypergravity
Low Pressure
Cold
Drouth		2:0	0/2 (0%)	1/1 (100%)	100%

Archaeal goodness-of-fit
Extremophile type	Observed	Expected	O-E	(O-E)²	(O-E)²/E
Planetary	75%	50%	25%	125%	75%
Spacial	25%	50%	-25%	125%	75%
Df=					1
X²=					0.075

Bacterial goodness-of-fit
Extremophile type	Observed %	Expected %	O-E	(O-E)²	(O-E)²/E
Planetary	25	50	-25	125	2.5
Spacial	75	50	25	125	2.5
Df=					1
X²=					5

Extremophile type	ρ	H₀	ρ-H₀	(ρ-H₀)²	(ρ-H₀)²/H₀
Acidophile
X²=

Part II.b.

Terrestrial versus [Martian+Spacial] Extremes

Part II.b-1.)

Totals for Terrestrial Extremes

Part II.b-2.)

Totals for [Martian+Spacial] Extremes

Part II.c.

Limitations on Methodology

General and special counts performed with described genera and species are necessarily problematic, for several reasons:

1.	Species and genera are largely arbitrary, especially in prokaryotes.
2.	The number of genera and species can change.
3.	Performing the count is difficult. Even under ideal circumstances (i.e., a perfect, non-arbitrary, universally applicable criterion for determining taxonomic rank, complete genomic knowledge of every living organism on the planet, phylogenies already well-determined and described in the published literature, and every species' tolerances and optimal growth conditions studied in painstaking detail and accurately described) it would be a monumental task to sift through and pore over the seemingly infinite number of papers, journal articles, and books published on the subject in order to count every genus and species ever described.
4.	General and special counts might not mean much. Even under ideal circumstances and with a complete count performed, it's questionable how useful this information would truly be. Bacteria seem to have inhabited the planet for at least 3.5 GA. There has been ample opportunity for Archaea and Bacteria to adapt to every conceivable condition on this planet, so these tendencies could be mere coincidence. While some groups of Archaea and Bacteria certainly appear to contain preponderances of certain varieties of extremophile, many of these adaptations co-evolved in diverse lineages, and are not always indicative of common ancestry. Additionally, genes involved in "planetary" extremophily seem in some cases related to genes involved in "spacial" extremophily. Furthermore, many of these genes were acquired via LGT (Fuchsman, &al. 2017; Herbold et al., 2017).

The conceit here is that the "overal theme" regarding which domain seems to be better at adapting to certain sorts of extremes is indicative, in a very general way, of evolutionary history.

Other

Related Articles

About

D. Jon Scott’s Website ► Science ► Physics ► Chemistry ► Biology ► Evolution

X-Philes:

Prokaryotic Extremophiles

Copyright © 2018 by Dustin Jon Scott [Last Update: June 6th, 2018]

Abstract

Part I

Extremophiles by Type

Part I.a.

Acidophiles & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Prokaryotic Neutriphiles

Part I.a-1.)

Acidophiles & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Archaeal Neutriphiles

Part I.a-2.)

Acidophiles & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Bacterial Neutriphiles

Part I.a-3.)

Comparison of Acidophiles & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Neutriphiles

Part I.a-3A.)

Comparison of Acidophilic & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Prokaryotic Genera

Part I.a-3B.)

Comparison of Acidophilic & Hyperacidotolerant, Near-Acidophilic Prokaryotic Species

Part I.b.

Alkaliphiles

Part I.b-1.)

Archaeal Alkaliphiles

Part I.b-2.)

Bacterial Alkaliphiles

Part I.b-3.)

Comparison of Alkaliphilic Prokaryotes

Part I.b-3A.)

Comparison of Alkaliphilic Genera

Part I.b-3A.)

Comparison of Alkaliphilic Species

Part I.c.

Barophiles

Part I.c-1.)

Archaeal Barophiles

Part I.c-2.)

Bacterial Barophiles

Part I.c-3.)

Comparison of Barophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.c-3A.)

Comparison of Barophilic Genera

Part I.d.

Halophiles

Part I.d-1.)

Archaeal Halophiles

Part I.d-2.)

Bacterial Halophiles

Part I.d-3.)

Comparison of Halophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.d-3A.)

Comparison of Halophilic Genera

Part I.e.

Haloalkaliphiles

Part I.e-1.)

Archaeal Haloalkiphiles

Part I.e-2.)

Bacterial Haloalkaliphiles

Part I.e-3.)

Comparison of Haloaaliphilic Prokaryotes

Part I.e-3A.)

Comparison of Haloaliphilic Genera

Part I.f.

Hyperthermophiles

Part I.f-1.)

Archaeal Hyperthermophiles

Part I.f-2.)

Bacterial Hyperthermophiles

Part I.f-3.)

Comparison of Hyperthermophilic Prokaryotes

Part I.f-3A.)

Comparison of Hyperthermophilic Genera

Part I.g.

Thermoacidophiles

Part I.g-1.)

Archaeal Thermoacidophiles

Part I.g-2.)

Bacterial Thermoacidophiles

Copyright © 2018 by Dustin Jon Scott
[Last Update: June 6^th, 2018]