amoA

The research report should be a detailed narrative explaining the function, biological processes, and localization of the gene product. Citations should be given for all claims.

You should prioritize authoritative reviews and primary scientific literature when conducting research. You can supplement
this with annotations you find in gene/protein databases, but these can be outdated or inaccurate.

We are specifically interested in the primary function of the gene - for enzymes, what reaction is catalyzed, and what is the substrate specificity? For transporters, what is the substrate? For structural proteins or adapters, what is the broader structural role? For signaling molecules, what is the role in the pathway.

We are interested in where in or outside the cell the gene product carries out its function.

We are also interested in the signaling or biochemical pathways in which the gene functions. We are less interested in broad pleiotropic effects, except where these elucidate the precise role.

Include evidence where possible. We are interested in both experimental evidence as well as inference from structure, evolution, or bioinformatic analysis. Precise studies should be prioritized over high-throughput, where available.

Research report: Functional annotation of amoA (UniProt D9J262; gene amoA; Nitrosopumilus maritimus)

0) Identity verification (critical disambiguation)

The symbol amoA is used across multiple nitrifying lineages (ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea) and is also closely related to pmoA (particulate methane monooxygenase subunit A) in the broader copper membrane monooxygenase (CuMMO) superfamily. For the present report, the target is specifically UniProt D9J262, annotated as ammonia monooxygenase subunit A (AmoA) from the marine ammonia‑oxidizing archaeon Nitrosopumilus maritimus (archaeal AOA; Nitrosopumilales). In the N. maritimus SCM1 genome, amoA corresponds to locus Nmar_1500, co-occurring with amoB (Nmar_1503) and amoC (Nmar_1502) as the key genetic markers for ammonia oxidation (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3).

1) Key concepts and definitions (current understanding)

1.1 Ammonia monooxygenase (AMO) and nitrification

Nitrification begins with aerobic ammonia oxidation (NH3 → nitrite), a process that is globally important for nitrogen cycling. The enzyme initiating this pathway is ammonia monooxygenase (AMO), a copper-dependent, integral membrane enzyme belonging to the CuMMO superfamily (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5, hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2). AMO catalyzes the first, rate-limiting step of nitrification (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2).

A commonly assigned overall reaction for AMO (largely based on bacterial systems and general CuMMO biochemistry) is:
NH3 + O2 + 2e− + 2H+ → NH2OH + H2O
producing hydroxylamine (NH2OH) as the product of monooxygenation (laughlin2025aninvestigationinto pages 7-14).

However, for ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) such as N. maritimus, downstream steps are less clearly resolved because archaea lack key bacterial components that couple to AMO in ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB). Specifically, the N. maritimus genome lacks bacterial hydroxylamine oxidoreductase (HAO) and many cytochrome c proteins, implying a distinct archaeal electron-transfer and intermediate-processing scheme (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3).

1.2 AmoA (subunit A) as a functional annotation target

AmoA is the “A” subunit of AMO and is used widely as a marker gene for ammonia oxidizers. In CuMMO enzymes, the A-subunit is an integral part of the membrane complex and is required for the functional assembly of the monooxygenase machinery (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5, hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2). In N. maritimus, amoA is one of the three core AMO genes detected (amoA/amoB/amoC), supporting the assignment of D9J262 as the key catalytic complex subunit rather than an unrelated “amoA” from another organism (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3).

2) Molecular function and pathway role of N. maritimus AmoA

2.1 Primary biological role: initiation of archaeal ammonia oxidation

In N. maritimus, AmoA functions as part of AMO, the enzyme that initiates ammonia oxidation and thereby supports chemolithoautotrophic growth on ammonia (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3). The N. maritimus genome analysis highlights that amoA/amoB/amoC are the key recognizable genetic markers of ammonia oxidation in this archaeon, reinforcing that AmoA is central to energy metabolism (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3).

2.2 Substrate specificity: NH3 is the inferred physiological substrate

A key conceptual point for functional annotation is that AMO’s physiological substrate is thought to be ammonia (NH3), not ammonium (NH4+). A 2023 review synthesizing AOA physiology argues that AMO substrates and inhibitors are largely non-polar, consistent with a hydrophobic active site, and concludes this implies NH3 is the natural substrate (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5). AMO also uses O2 as a cosubstrate (and oxygen is also the terminal electron acceptor for ammonia oxidizers’ respiration) (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 2-3).

Despite strong consensus for NH3 as the direct substrate, the archaeal AMO’s substrate scope (including potential co-oxidation of other reduced compounds) remains incompletely characterized, and whole-cell evidence (e.g., inhibitor profiles) is often used because purified active AMO is difficult to obtain (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 5-5).

2.3 Downstream pathway coupling: archaeal-specific electron transfer network

A major difference between AOA and AOB is that N. maritimus lacks bacterial HAO and many cytochrome c components, suggesting a different pathway for oxidizing intermediates and returning electrons to AMO (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3). The genome instead encodes numerous multicopper oxidases and blue copper proteins, which the authors interpret as evidence for a copper-based periplasmic/outside-facing redox network to replace cytochrome-based electron transfer (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3). This is consistent with broader AOA pathway models emphasizing copper-handling and copper-based electron carriers (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5).

3) Cellular localization and topology

AMO in archaea is an integral membrane complex (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2). Inference summarized in a 2023 AOA review indicates that structural analysis of archaeal AmoB/C supports an extracellular/outward-facing active-site orientation (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5). The archaeal AMO also appears to have extracellular domain differences compared with bacterial homologs (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2). These features matter for annotation because they imply that the catalytic chemistry likely occurs at or near the exterior side of the cytoplasmic membrane, interfacing with periplasm/extracellular electron carriers (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5, walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3).

4) AMO complex composition and gene context (recent developments)

4.1 Core subunits and archaeal-specific accessory subunits

Historically AMO was treated as a 3-subunit complex (AmoA/B/C), analogous to bacterial AMO. However, 2023 work using native membrane complexes, blue-native gels, proteomics, modeling, and cross-linking reported that archaeal AMO is of “unexpected complexity”, identifying—besides AmoA/B/C—the previously predicted AmoX and two newly supported conserved AOA-specific subunits AmoY and AmoZ (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2). These additional components were described as unique to AOA, highly conserved, co-regulated, and genomically linked with other AMO genes in streamlined AOA genomes (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2). A 2023 review similarly summarizes that archaeal AMO is divergent and likely includes AmoX/Y/Z (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5).

This shifts functional annotation from “AmoA in a 3-subunit AMO” toward “AmoA in a larger AOA-specific AMO holoenzyme” (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2).

4.2 Gene/operon context in N. maritimus

In N. maritimus, amoA (Nmar_1500), amoB (Nmar_1503), and amoC (Nmar_1502) are encoded in the genome and serve as the main clear genetic markers for ammonia oxidation (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3). The genome paper emphasizes strong divergence of archaeal AMO sequences from bacterial AMO, with similarities to pMMO, which is relevant to interpreting AmoA evolution and inhibitor/substrate interactions (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3).

5) Quantitative kinetics and physiological statistics (key data)

5.1 High substrate affinity (oligotrophic adaptation)

N. maritimus SCM1 is an extreme high-affinity ammonia oxidizer. A landmark kinetic study reported Km ≈ 133 nM total ammonium (NH3 + NH4+) with a very low substrate threshold (≤10 nM), and noted that cells could deplete ammonium below a 10 nM detection limit (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2). The same work reported a specific affinity for reduced nitrogen of 68,700 L g cells−1 h−1, described as >200-fold higher than AOB values used in comparison (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2, martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 3-4). The maximum growth rate was reported as 0.027 h−1 (doubling time ≈ 26 h) (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2).

These properties are central to AmoA functional annotation because they show the AMO system (including AmoA) enables oxidation at nanomolar substrate levels typical of oligotrophic oceans (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2).

5.2 Stoichiometry and rate parameters

The same kinetics work reported ammonium and oxygen were consumed at ~1:1.52 stoichiometry (n=10; s.d. 0.06) (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 2-2, martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 2-3). From the figure-extracted data, Km ≈ 0.134 µM is shown for Michaelis–Menten kinetics (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 2-2). A Vmax annotation of 0.857 µM N h−1 (with a corresponding protein-normalized rate reported in the figure annotation) is also present (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 2-2). The study additionally reports ammonia-oxidation activity of 51.9 mmol ammonium per mg protein per h, stated to be comparable to cultivated AOB (30–80 mmol ammonium per mg protein per h) (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2).

5.3 Community-level kinetics context

Field measurements in archaeal-dominated marine communities report similarly low half-saturation constants and cite the N. maritimus SCM1 Km value in the same range (~133 nM) (horak2013ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2), supporting the ecological relevance of AmoA-mediated high-affinity nitrification.

6) Regulation and expression: amoA transcripts and proteomics

6.1 amoA transcriptional response to low ammonia and starvation

A key regulatory dataset quantified amoA transcripts per cell under different ammonia regimes. In batch culture, amoA transcript levels were ~1.4–2.6 copies/cell during early–mid growth and fell to ~0.047 → 0.009 copies/cell later (nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 4-5). Under dialysis-bag low-ammonia growth, amoA decreased from ~2.50 → 0.54 copies/cell (nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 4-5). Under explicit ammonia starvation, amoA declined from ~2.50 → 0.71 → 0.027–0.010 copies/cell (nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 4-5).

Importantly, amoA remained comparatively high under nanomolar-ammonia growth (dialysis bag), with amoA decreasing only modestly (reported as ~21% of pre-transfer levels) compared with stronger repression of some other genes—interpreted as sustained investment in ammonia oxidation even at extremely low substrate concentrations (nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 2-3).

6.2 Proteomic response of AMO to iron limitation

In a proteomic study of N. maritimus under iron limitation, the combined AMO subunit signal increased from 1.75% (Fe-replete) to 2.37% (Fe-limited) of total proteome LFQ intensity; AmoA (Nmar_1500) increased significantly (FDR-adjusted p < 0.05), AmoB was among the top-10 most intense proteins under Fe limitation, while AmoC showed no change in intensity (shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 2-4, shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 4-5). This provides quantitative evidence that AMO (including AmoA) remains strongly expressed and can be upweighted under nutrient stress, likely to maintain energy acquisition when other components (e.g., Fe-rich proteins) are downshifted (shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 2-4).

7) Recent developments and latest research (prioritizing 2023–2024)

7.1 2023: archaeal AMO is larger than AmoABC

The identification of AmoY and AmoZ as conserved archaeal-specific AMO subunits (in addition to AmoX) is a key 2023 advance toward a more complete structural and mechanistic model of archaeal AMO (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2). This alters how amoA should be interpreted: AmoA is likely embedded in a multi-subunit AOA-specific AMO architecture rather than a simple AmoABC-only complex (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2).

7.2 2023: synthesis of AOA metabolic models and open questions

A 2023 authoritative review emphasizes that despite ecological importance, AMO remains difficult to purify and many mechanistic details (active site, electron flow, structural basis of different affinities) remain unresolved; therefore, whole-cell kinetics, inhibitor studies, and omics remain central evidence streams (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5, wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 5-5).

7.3 2024: in situ bloom activity and nitrogen-cycle consequences

A 2024 field study quantified nitrification during an AOA bloom in South San Francisco Bay. Bottom-water nitrification rates rose to a peak of 1797 ± 63 nM day−1 (mid‑Nov 2018), with strong correlations between nitrification rates and AOA qPCR abundance (bottom R2 = 0.80, shallow R2 = 0.73, P < .001) (rasmussen2024dynamicsandactivity pages 3-4). AOA qPCR abundances peaked around 2.57×10^6 ± 1.87×10^5 copies L−1 (bottom) and 3.22×10^6 ± 8.04×10^5 copies L−1 (shallow) (rasmussen2024dynamicsandactivity pages 3-4). During the bloom, a dominant AOA MAG showed very high transcriptional activity, with amoA among the most highly transcribed genes, and the authors note that nitrite can become elevated in bloom years (historical nitrite >7 µM) (rasmussen2024dynamicsandactivity pages 3-4). This is a real-world implementation/validation of AmoA-mediated nitrification at ecosystem scale.

7.4 2024: progress toward AOA functional genetics

A 2024 thesis reports progress toward a genetic toolbox for AOA, including: development of solid-medium colony growth (Phytagel), antibiotic sensitivity screening (puromycin/hygromycin B), construction of E. coli–AOA shuttle vectors based on the host origin of replication, and development of a plasmid pfrank-CRISPR-amoB containing elements needed for CRISPR-Cas9-based genome editing; however, transformation attempts were unsuccessful, highlighting continuing barriers to routine genetics in AOA (klein2024establishmentofa pages 1-5, klein2024establishmentofa pages 7-10, klein2024establishmentofa pages 10-13). While not specific to N. maritimus amoA, this is directly relevant to the broader effort to experimentally validate AMO subunit functions in AOA.

8) Current applications and real-world implementations

1. Environmental monitoring and microbial ecology: amoA is routinely used to track AOA distributions and activity potential in marine systems; however, caution is warranted because detection of amoA genes/transcripts does not guarantee instantaneous nitrification activity (horak2013ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2).
2. Biogeochemical forecasting and management: the 2024 South San Francisco Bay bloom study demonstrates that AOA-driven nitrification can reach >1000 nM day−1 rates and correlate with high AOA abundances, with implications for estuarine nitrogen retention/loss and transient nitrite accumulation (rasmussen2024dynamicsandactivity pages 3-4).
3. Nutrient-limitation physiology: Fe limitation experiments show AMO investment can increase under micronutrient scarcity, relevant to modeling nitrification in iron-poor marine regions (shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 2-4).

9) Expert opinions / authoritative synthesis and uncertainties

Authoritative synthesis emphasizes that AMO—especially in archaea—is still incompletely characterized due to difficulty isolating/purifying active enzyme, and that many insights come from indirect structural inference, proteomics, and inhibitor studies (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5, hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2). The N. maritimus genome paper explicitly proposed that archaeal ammonia oxidation may involve different hydroxylamine oxidation biochemistry or potentially different intermediates, given the absence of bacterial HAO and cytochrome c systems (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3). Thus, while AmoA’s role as an AMO subunit initiating nitrification is strongly supported, the precise chemical intermediate sequence in AOA remains an active research area (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3, wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5).

10) Evidence summary table

The following evidence-backed table compiles key annotation-ready facts (reaction role, complex composition, localization inference, kinetics, regulation, and omics responses) with URLs and publication dates.

Table: This table summarizes key functional-annotation facts for Nitrosopumilus maritimus AmoA (UniProt D9J262/Nmar_1500), including biochemical role, pathway context, localization, kinetics, and expression responses. It is designed as a compact evidence-backed reference for gene-function annotation.

References (URLs; publication dates)

Key sources used in this report include: Walker et al. (PNAS, Apr 2010) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913533107 (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3); Martens-Habbena et al. (Nature, Oct 2009) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08465 (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2); Nakagawa & Stahl (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Nov 2013) https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02028-13 (nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 4-5); Shafiee et al. (Environmental Microbiology, May 2022) https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15491 (shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 2-4); Hodgskiss et al. (ISME Journal, Apr 2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01367-3 (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2); Wright & Lehtovirta-Morley (ISME Journal, Jul 2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0 (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5); Rasmussen & Francis (ISME Journal, Jan 2024) https://doi.org/10.1093/ismejo/wrae148 (rasmussen2024dynamicsandactivity pages 3-4); Klein (2024 thesis) (klein2024establishmentofa pages 1-5).

References

1. (walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3): C. Walker, J. Torré, M. Klotz, H. Urakawa, N. Pinel, D. Arp, C. Brochier-Armanet, P. Chain, P. Chain, P. Chain, Patricia P. Chan, A. Gollabgir, J. Hemp, Michael Hügler, E. A. Karr, M. Könneke, M. Shin, M. Shin, T. Lawton, T. Lowe, Willm Martens‐Habbena, L. Sayavedra-Soto, D. Lang, D. Lang, S. Sievert, A. Rosenzweig, G. Manning, and D. Stahl. Nitrosopumilus maritimus genome reveals unique mechanisms for nitrification and autotrophy in globally distributed marine crenarchaea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107:8818-8823, Apr 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913533107, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913533107. This article has 1110 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

2. (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5): Chloe L Wright and Laura E Lehtovirta-Morley. Nitrification and beyond: metabolic versatility of ammonia oxidising archaea. The ISME Journal, 17:1358-1368, Jul 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0, doi:10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0. This article has 143 citations.

3. (hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2): Logan H. Hodgskiss, Michael Melcher, Melina Kerou, Weiqiang Chen, Rafael I. Ponce-Toledo, Savvas N. Savvides, Stefanie Wienkoop, Markus Hartl, and Christa Schleper. Unexpected complexity of the ammonia monooxygenase in archaea. The ISME Journal, 17:588-599, Apr 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01367-3, doi:10.1038/s41396-023-01367-3. This article has 63 citations.

4. (laughlin2025aninvestigationinto pages 7-14): A Laughlin. An investigation into copper proteins germane to biological ammonia oxidation. Unknown journal, 2025.

5. (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 2-3): Chloe L Wright and Laura E Lehtovirta-Morley. Nitrification and beyond: metabolic versatility of ammonia oxidising archaea. The ISME Journal, 17:1358-1368, Jul 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0, doi:10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0. This article has 143 citations.

6. (wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 5-5): Chloe L Wright and Laura E Lehtovirta-Morley. Nitrification and beyond: metabolic versatility of ammonia oxidising archaea. The ISME Journal, 17:1358-1368, Jul 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0, doi:10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0. This article has 143 citations.

7. (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2): Willm Martens-Habbena, Paul M. Berube, Hidetoshi Urakawa, José R. de la Torre, and David A. Stahl. Ammonia oxidation kinetics determine niche separation of nitrifying archaea and bacteria. Nature, 461:976-979, Oct 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08465, doi:10.1038/nature08465. This article has 1928 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

8. (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 3-4): Willm Martens-Habbena, Paul M. Berube, Hidetoshi Urakawa, José R. de la Torre, and David A. Stahl. Ammonia oxidation kinetics determine niche separation of nitrifying archaea and bacteria. Nature, 461:976-979, Oct 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08465, doi:10.1038/nature08465. This article has 1928 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

9. (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 2-2): Willm Martens-Habbena, Paul M. Berube, Hidetoshi Urakawa, José R. de la Torre, and David A. Stahl. Ammonia oxidation kinetics determine niche separation of nitrifying archaea and bacteria. Nature, 461:976-979, Oct 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08465, doi:10.1038/nature08465. This article has 1928 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

10. (martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 2-3): Willm Martens-Habbena, Paul M. Berube, Hidetoshi Urakawa, José R. de la Torre, and David A. Stahl. Ammonia oxidation kinetics determine niche separation of nitrifying archaea and bacteria. Nature, 461:976-979, Oct 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08465, doi:10.1038/nature08465. This article has 1928 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

11. (horak2013ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2): Rachel E A Horak, Wei Qin, Andy J Schauer, E Virginia Armbrust, Anitra E Ingalls, James W Moffett, David A Stahl, and Allan H Devol. Ammonia oxidation kinetics and temperature sensitivity of a natural marine community dominated by archaea. The ISME Journal, 7:2023-2033, May 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.75, doi:10.1038/ismej.2013.75. This article has 177 citations.

12. (nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 4-5): Tatsunori Nakagawa and David A. Stahl. Transcriptional response of the archaeal ammonia oxidizer nitrosopumilus maritimus to low and environmentally relevant ammonia concentrations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79:6911-6916, Nov 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02028-13, doi:10.1128/aem.02028-13. This article has 57 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

13. (nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 2-3): Tatsunori Nakagawa and David A. Stahl. Transcriptional response of the archaeal ammonia oxidizer nitrosopumilus maritimus to low and environmentally relevant ammonia concentrations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79:6911-6916, Nov 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02028-13, doi:10.1128/aem.02028-13. This article has 57 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

14. (shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 2-4): Roxana T. Shafiee, Joseph T. Snow, Svenja Hester, Qiong Zhang, and Rosalind E. M. Rickaby. Proteomic response of the marine ammonia‐oxidising archaeon nitrosopumilus maritimus to iron limitation reveals strategies to compensate for nutrient scarcity. May 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15491, doi:10.1111/1462-2920.15491. This article has 11 citations and is from a domain leading peer-reviewed journal.

15. (shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 4-5): Roxana T. Shafiee, Joseph T. Snow, Svenja Hester, Qiong Zhang, and Rosalind E. M. Rickaby. Proteomic response of the marine ammonia‐oxidising archaeon nitrosopumilus maritimus to iron limitation reveals strategies to compensate for nutrient scarcity. May 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15491, doi:10.1111/1462-2920.15491. This article has 11 citations and is from a domain leading peer-reviewed journal.

16. (rasmussen2024dynamicsandactivity pages 3-4): Anna N. Rasmussen and Christopher A. Francis. Dynamics and activity of an ammonia-oxidizing archaea bloom in south san francisco bay. The ISME Journal, Jan 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/ismejo/wrae148, doi:10.1093/ismejo/wrae148. This article has 3 citations.

17. (klein2024establishmentofa pages 1-5): TMN Klein. Establishment of a genetic toolbox for ammonia-oxidising archaea. Unknown journal, 2024.

18. (klein2024establishmentofa pages 7-10): TMN Klein. Establishment of a genetic toolbox for ammonia-oxidising archaea. Unknown journal, 2024.

19. (klein2024establishmentofa pages 10-13): TMN Klein. Establishment of a genetic toolbox for ammonia-oxidising archaea. Unknown journal, 2024.

20. (martenshabbena2011nitrogenmetabolismand pages 11-14): Willm Martens-Habbena and David A. Stahl. Nitrogen metabolism and kinetics of ammonia-oxidizing archaea. Methods in enzymology, 496:465-87, Jan 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386489-5.00019-1, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-386489-5.00019-1. This article has 102 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

21. (martenshabbena2011nitrogenmetabolismand pages 14-17): Willm Martens-Habbena and David A. Stahl. Nitrogen metabolism and kinetics of ammonia-oxidizing archaea. Methods in enzymology, 496:465-87, Jan 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386489-5.00019-1, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-386489-5.00019-1. This article has 102 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

22. (nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 1-2): Tatsunori Nakagawa and David A. Stahl. Transcriptional response of the archaeal ammonia oxidizer nitrosopumilus maritimus to low and environmentally relevant ammonia concentrations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79:6911-6916, Nov 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02028-13, doi:10.1128/aem.02028-13. This article has 57 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

Artifacts

• Edison artifact artifact-00

Citations

1. walker2010nitrosopumilusmaritimusgenome pages 2-3
2. hodgskiss2023unexpectedcomplexityof pages 1-2
3. laughlin2025aninvestigationinto pages 7-14
4. wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 3-5
5. wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 2-3
6. wright2023nitrificationandbeyond pages 5-5
7. martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2
8. martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 2-2
9. horak2013ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 1-2
10. nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 4-5
11. nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 2-3
12. shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 2-4
13. rasmussen2024dynamicsandactivity pages 3-4
14. klein2024establishmentofa pages 1-5
15. martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 3-4
16. martenshabbena2009ammoniaoxidationkinetics pages 2-3
17. shafiee2022proteomicresponseof pages 4-5
18. klein2024establishmentofa pages 7-10
19. klein2024establishmentofa pages 10-13
20. martenshabbena2011nitrogenmetabolismand pages 11-14
21. martenshabbena2011nitrogenmetabolismand pages 14-17
22. nakagawa2013transcriptionalresponseof pages 1-2
23. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913533107
24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0;
25. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.75
26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01367-3;
27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0
28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01367-3
29. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913533107;
30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08465;
31. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386489-5.00019-1
32. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02028-13
33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15491
34. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08465
35. https://doi.org/10.1093/ismejo/wrae148
36. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913533107,
37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01467-0,
38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01367-3,
39. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08465,
40. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.75,
41. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02028-13,
42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15491,
43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ismejo/wrae148,
44. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386489-5.00019-1,