Skip to main content
. 2014 Oct 31;111(51):18116–18125. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1407502111

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Model calibration to experimental data. (A) Net isotopic fractionation (ε34) by A. fulgidus grown at 80 °C at constant csSRR (6, 7) as a function of extracellular sulfate concentrations ([SO42]out). Orange contours show the value of ε34 for different values of csSRR in fmol H2S⋅cell−1⋅d−1. The black curve shows ε34 for the harmonic mean of the csSRR values that were reported for some of the experiments (black squares). The csSRR values were not reported for other experiments (white squares), resulting in the scatter around the black curve. (B) Predicted ε34 as a function of csSRR for [SO42]out between 10 μM and 100 mM. Experiments for which [SO42]out, csSRR, and ε34 were all reported are also shown, color coded by [SO42]out. (C) Predicted fractionation exponent (λ33) as a function of ε34 for the same [SO42]out as in B. Experiments for which minor isotope data exist are also shown (14). (D) Predicted ε34-[SO42]out relationship for Desulfovibrio strain DMSS-1 grown at ∼20 °C, 21–14 mM [SO42]out, and 2–7 mM sulfide (810). (E) Measured (white squares) and model (black curve) ε34 vs. csSRR for the experiments in D. These experiments were run in batch culture, so we assumed the average [SO42]out and external sulfide concentrations for the interval over which ε34 vs. csSRRs were determined (SI Materials and Methods). (F) λ33 vs. ε34 for the experiments in D. Error bars are 1σ reported in the experiments. (G–I) Same as D–F, but for D. vulgaris Hildenborough, grown at 25 °C and with precisely controlled [SO42]out of 28 mM (11). Sulfide concentrations for the model curves were assumed to be 0.1 mM.