Literature DB >> 12035076

Thermodynamic and Kinetic Requirements in Anaerobic Methane Oxidizing Consortia Exclude Hydrogen, Acetate, and Methanol as Possible Electron Shuttles.

K.B. Sørensen1, K. Finster, N.B. Ramsing.   

Abstract

Anaerobic methane oxidation (AMO) has long remained an enigma in microbial ecology. In the process the net reaction appears to be an oxidation of methane with sulfate as electron acceptor. In order to explain experimental data such as effects of inhibitors and isotopic signals in biomarkers it has been suggested that the process is carried out by a consortium of bacteria using an unknown compound to shuttle electrons between the participants. The overall change in free energy during AMO with sulfate is very small (?22 kJ mol-1) at in situ concentrations of methane and sulfate. In order to share the available free energy between the members of the consortium, the concentration of the intermediate electron shuttle compound becomes crucial. Diffusive flux of a substrate (i.e, the electron shuttle) between bacteria requires a stable concentration gradient where the concentration is higher in the producing organism than in the consuming organism. Since changes in concentrations cause changes in reaction free energies, the diffusive flux of a catabolic product/substrate between bacteria is associated with a net loss of available energy. This restricts maximal inter-bacterial distances in consortia composed of stationary bacteria. A simple theoretical model was used to describe the relationship between inter-bacterial distances and the energy lost due to concentration differences in consortia. Key parameters turned out to be the permissible concentration range of the electron shuttle in the consortium (i.e., the concentration range that allows both participants to gain sufficient energy) and the stoichiometry of the partial reactions. The model was applied to two known consortia degrading ethanol and butyrate and to four hypothetical methane-oxidizing consortia (MOC) based on interspecies transfer of hydrogen, methanol, acetate, or formate, respectively. In the first three MOCs the permissible distances between producers and consumers of the transferred compounds were less than two times prokaryotic cell wall diameters. Consequently, it is not possible that a MOC can be based on inter-species transfer of hydrogen, methanol, or acetate. Formate, on the other hand, is a possible shuttle candidate provided the bacteria are attached to one another. In general the model predicts that members of consortia thriving on low energy such as the MOC must adhere to each other and utilize a compound for the exchange of electrons that has a high permissible concentration range and a high diffusion coefficient and transfers as many electrons as possible per molecule.

Entities:  

Year:  2001        PMID: 12035076     DOI: 10.1007/s002480000083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Microb Ecol        ISSN: 0095-3628            Impact factor:   4.552


  11 in total

1.  Biomarker evidence for widespread anaerobic methane oxidation in Mediterranean sediments by a consortium of methanogenic archaea and bacteria. The Medinaut Shipboard Scientific Party.

Authors:  R D Pancost; J S Sinninghe Damsté; S de Lint; M J van der Maarel; J C Gottschal
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Diffusion of the Interspecies Electron Carriers H(2) and Formate in Methanogenic Ecosystems and Its Implications in the Measurement of K(m) for H(2) or Formate Uptake.

Authors:  D R Boone; R L Johnson; Y Liu
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Inhibition experiments on anaerobic methane oxidation.

Authors:  M J Alperin; W S Reeburgh
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Anaerobic methane oxidation: occurrence and ecology.

Authors:  A J Zehnder; T D Brock
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Control of Interspecies Electron Flow during Anaerobic Digestion: Role of Floc Formation in Syntrophic Methanogenesis.

Authors:  Jurgen H Thiele; M Chartrain; J Gregory Zeikus
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 6.  Energetics of syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic degradation.

Authors:  B Schink
Journal:  Microbiol Mol Biol Rev       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 11.056

7.  Methane-consuming archaebacteria in marine sediments.

Authors:  K U Hinrichs; J M Hayes; S P Sylva; P G Brewer; E F DeLong
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-04-29       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Oxidation of methane in the absence of oxygen in lake water samples.

Authors:  A T Panganiban; T E Patt; W Hart; R S Hanson
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1979-02       Impact factor: 4.792

9.  In situ measurement of methane oxidation in groundwater by using natural-gradient tracer tests.

Authors:  R L Smith; B L Howes; S P Garabedian
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 10.  Metabolism of methanogens.

Authors:  M Blaut
Journal:  Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 2.271

View more
  17 in total

1.  Carbon and sulfur back flux during anaerobic microbial oxidation of methane and coupled sulfate reduction.

Authors:  Thomas Holler; Gunter Wegener; Helge Niemann; Christian Deusner; Timothy G Ferdelman; Antje Boetius; Benjamin Brunner; Friedrich Widdel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-12-12       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Growth and methane oxidation rates of anaerobic methanotrophic archaea in a continuous-flow bioreactor.

Authors:  Peter R Girguis; Victoria J Orphan; Steven J Hallam; Edward F DeLong
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 3.  Prokaryote diversity and taxonomy: current status and future challenges.

Authors:  Aharon Oren
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2004-04-29       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 4.  Physiology and Distribution of Archaeal Methanotrophs That Couple Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane with Sulfate Reduction.

Authors:  S Bhattarai; C Cassarini; P N L Lens
Journal:  Microbiol Mol Biol Rev       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 11.056

5.  Consumption of methane and CO2 by methanotrophic microbial mats from gas seeps of the anoxic Black Sea.

Authors:  Tina Treude; Victoria Orphan; Katrin Knittel; Armin Gieseke; Christopher H House; Antje Boetius
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2007-02-02       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 6.  Electron transfer in syntrophic communities of anaerobic bacteria and archaea.

Authors:  Alfons J M Stams; Caroline M Plugge
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 60.633

7.  Effect of methanogenic substrates on anaerobic oxidation of methane and sulfate reduction by an anaerobic methanotrophic enrichment.

Authors:  Roel J W Meulepas; Christian G Jagersma; Ahmad F Khadem; Alfons J M Stams; Piet N L Lens
Journal:  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2010-05-06       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Multiple archaeal groups mediate methane oxidation in anoxic cold seep sediments.

Authors:  Victoria J Orphan; Christopher H House; Kai-Uwe Hinrichs; Kevin D McKeegan; Edward F DeLong
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-05-28       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Molecular characterization of sulfate-reducing bacteria in the Guaymas Basin.

Authors:  Ashita Dhillon; Andreas Teske; Jesse Dillon; David A Stahl; Mitchell L Sogin
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.792

10.  Arthrobacter strain VAI-A utilizes acyl-homoserine lactone inactivation products and stimulates quorum signal biodegradation by Variovorax paradoxus.

Authors:  Suvi Flagan; Weng-Ki Ching; Jared R Leadbetter
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.792

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.