Literature DB >> 10831421

Sulfate-reducing bacteria methylate mercury at variable rates in pure culture and in marine sediments.

J K King1, J E Kostka, M E Frischer, F M Saunders.   

Abstract

Differences in methylmercury (CH(3)Hg) production normalized to the sulfate reduction rate (SRR) in various species of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) were quantified in pure cultures and in marine sediment slurries in order to determine if SRB strains which differ phylogenetically methylate mercury (Hg) at similar rates. Cultures representing five genera of the SRB (Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, Desulfobulbus propionicus, Desulfococcus multivorans, Desulfobacter sp. strain BG-8, and Desulfobacterium sp. strain BG-33) were grown in a strictly anoxic, minimal medium that received a dose of inorganic Hg 120 h after inoculation. The mercury methylation rates (MMR) normalized per cell were up to 3 orders of magnitude higher in pure cultures of members of SRB groups capable of acetate utilization (e.g., the family Desulfobacteriaceae) than in pure cultures of members of groups that are not able to use acetate (e.g., the family Desulfovibrionaceae). Little or no Hg methylation was observed in cultures of Desulfobacterium or Desulfovibrio strains in the absence of sulfate, indicating that Hg methylation was coupled to respiration in these strains. Mercury methylation, sulfate reduction, and the identities of sulfate-reducing bacteria in marine sediment slurries were also studied. Sulfate-reducing consortia were identified by using group-specific oligonucleotide probes that targeted the 16S rRNA molecule. Acetate-amended slurries, which were dominated by members of the Desulfobacterium and Desulfobacter groups, exhibited a pronounced ability to methylate Hg when the MMR were normalized to the SRR, while lactate-amended and control slurries had normalized MMR that were not statistically different. Collectively, the results of pure-culture and amended-sediment experiments suggest that members of the family Desulfobacteriaceae have a greater potential to methylate Hg than members of the family Desulfovibrionaceae have when the MMR are normalized to the SRR. Hg methylation potential may be related to genetic composition and/or carbon metabolism in the SRB. Furthermore, we found that in marine sediments that are rich in organic matter and dissolved sulfide rapid CH(3)Hg accumulation is coupled to rapid sulfate reduction. The observations described above have broad implications for understanding the control of CH(3)Hg formation and for developing remediation strategies for Hg-contaminated sediments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10831421      PMCID: PMC110551          DOI: 10.1128/AEM.66.6.2430-2437.2000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol        ISSN: 0099-2240            Impact factor:   4.792


  17 in total

1.  Sulfur isotope fractionation during bacterial sulfate reduction in organic-rich sediments.

Authors:  K S Habicht; D E Canfield
Journal:  Geochim Cosmochim Acta       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 5.010

2.  Seasonal and spatial variations in mercury methylation and demethylation in an oligotrophic lake.

Authors:  E T Korthals; M R Winfrey
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  An improved speciation method for mercury by GC/CVAFS after aqueous phase ethylation and room temperature precollection.

Authors:  L Liang; M Horvat; N S Bloom
Journal:  Talanta       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 6.057

4.  Pathways and microbiology of thiosulfate transformations and sulfate reduction in a marine sediment (kattegat, denmark).

Authors:  B B Jørgensen; F Bak
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Metabolic Pathways Leading to Mercury Methylation in Desulfovibrio desulfuricans LS.

Authors:  S C Choi; T Chase; R Bartha
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Sulfate-reducing bacteria: principal methylators of mercury in anoxic estuarine sediment.

Authors:  G C Compeau; R Bartha
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Mercury methylation and demethylation in anoxic lake sediments and by strictly anaerobic bacteria.

Authors:  K R Pak; R Bartha
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.792

8.  Estimation of mercury-sulfide speciation in sediment pore waters using octanol-water partitioning and implications for availability to methylating bacteria.

Authors:  Janina M Benoit; Robert P Mason; Cynthia C Gilmour
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.742

9.  Effects of low dietary levels of methyl mercury on mallard reproduction.

Authors:  G Heinz
Journal:  Bull Environ Contam Toxicol       Date:  1974-04       Impact factor: 2.151

10.  Mercury methylation in aquatic systems affected by acid deposition.

Authors:  C C Gilmour; E A Henry
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 8.071

View more
  44 in total

1.  Aspects of bioavailability of mercury for methylation in pure cultures of Desulfobulbus propionicus (1pr3).

Authors:  J M Benoit; C C Gilmour; R P Mason
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Whole-cell versus total RNA extraction for analysis of microbial community structure with 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes in salt marsh sediments.

Authors:  M E Frischer; J M Danforth; M A Newton Healy; F M Saunders
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Sulfate-reducing bacterium Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132 as a model for understanding bacterial mercury methylation.

Authors:  Cynthia C Gilmour; Dwayne A Elias; Amy M Kucken; Steven D Brown; Anthony V Palumbo; Christopher W Schadt; Judy D Wall
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Mercury and other heavy metals influence bacterial community structure in contaminated Tennessee streams.

Authors:  Tatiana A Vishnivetskaya; Jennifer J Mosher; Anthony V Palumbo; Zamin K Yang; Mircea Podar; Steven D Brown; Scott C Brooks; Baohua Gu; George R Southworth; Meghan M Drake; Craig C Brandt; Dwayne A Elias
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Mercury analysis of acid- and alkaline-reduced biological samples: identification of meta-cinnabar as the major biotransformed compound in algae.

Authors:  David Kelly; Kenneth Budd; Daniel D Lefebvre
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Mercury methylation from unexpected sources: molybdate-inhibited freshwater sediments and an iron-reducing bacterium.

Authors:  Emily J Fleming; E Erin Mack; Peter G Green; Douglas C Nelson
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Heavy metal contamination in sediments of an artificial reservoir impacted by long-term mining activity in the Almadén mercury district (Spain).

Authors:  Efrén García-Ordiales; José María Esbrí; Stefano Covelli; Miguel Angel López-Berdonces; Pablo L Higueras; Jorge Loredo
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 4.223

8.  Relationships between bacterial energetic metabolism, mercury methylation potential, and hgcA/hgcB gene expression in Desulfovibrio dechloroacetivorans BerOc1.

Authors:  Marisol Goñi-Urriza; Yannick Corsellis; Laurent Lanceleur; Emmanuel Tessier; Jérôme Gury; Mathilde Monperrus; Rémy Guyoneaud
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 4.223

9.  Mercury-methylating genes dsrB and hgcA in soils/sediments of the Three Gorges Reservoir.

Authors:  Hongxia Du; Ming Ma; Tao Sun; Xianzhu Dai; Caiyun Yang; Feng Luo; Dingyong Wang; Yasuo Igarashi
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 10.  Neurotoxicity of organomercurial compounds.

Authors:  Coral Sanfeliu; Jordi Sebastià; Rosa Cristòfol; Eduard Rodríguez-Farré
Journal:  Neurotox Res       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.911

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.