| Literature DB >> 24949257 |
Tae-Jin Park1, Weijun Ding2, Shaoan Cheng2, Manreetpal Singh Brar1, Angel Po Yee Ma1, Hein Min Tun1, Frederick C Leung3.
Abstract
High power densities have been obtained from MFC reactors having a purple color characteristic of Rhodopseudomonas. We investigated the microbial community structure and population in developed purple MFC medium (DPMM) and MFC effluent (DPME) using 16S rRNA pyrosequencing. In DPMM, dominant bacteria were Comamonas (44.6%), Rhodopseudomonas (19.5%) and Pseudomonas (17.2%). The bacterial community of DPME mainly consisted of bacteria related to Rhodopseudomonas (72.2%). Hydrogen oxidizing bacteria were identified in both purple-colored samples: Hydrogenophaga and Sphaerochaeta in the DPMM, and Arcobacter, unclassified Ignavibacteriaceae, Acinetobacter, Desulfovibrio and Wolinella in the DPME. The methanogenic community of both purple-colored samples was dominated by hydrogenotrophic methanogens including Methanobacterium, Methanobrevibacter and Methanocorpusculum with significantly lower numbers of Methanosarcina. These results suggeste that hydrogen is actively produced by Rhodopseudomonas that leads to the dominance of hydrogen consuming microorganisms in both purple-colored samples. The syntrophic relationship between Rhodopseudomonas and hydrogenotrophic microbes might be important for producing high power density in the acetate-fed MFC under light conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Hydrogen oxidizing bacteria; Hydrogenotrophic methanogens; Microbial community; Purple color characteristic of Rhodopseudomonas; Syntrophic relationship
Year: 2014 PMID: 24949257 PMCID: PMC4052673 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-014-0022-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Figure 1Rarefaction curves for bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences with cut-off threshold of 97% similarity in DPMM and DPME.
Figure 2Relative abundances of bacterial phyla and proteobacterial classes in DPMM and DPME.
Relative abundances of bacterial OTUs based on the V1-V3 primer set (>0.1% of total population) in DPMM and DPME
| 19.63 | 73.28 | 100 | ||
| 42.82 | 0.47 | 27 | ||
| 17.12 | 0.05 | 148 | ||
| Unclassfied | 3.27 | 0.23 | 25 | Uncultured bacterium (JQ724350, 99%) |
| 0 | 5.25 | 66 | ||
| Unclassfied | 1.48 | 0.29 | 7 | Uncultured bacterium (JF568463, 99%) |
| 3.99 | 0.05 | 153 | ||
| Unclassfied | 1.46 | 0.23 | 137 | Uncultured |
| 1.88 | 0.13 | 127 | Uncultured bacterium (JQ245575, 99%) | |
| 0 | 1.14 | 73 | Uncultured bacterium (GQ152964, 99%) | |
| Unclassfied | 0 | 1.38 | 135 | Uncultured |
| 0.3 | 0.68 | 136 | Uncultured bacterium (KC001216, 99%) | |
| 0.01 | 0.23 | 190 | Uncultured | |
| 0.1 | 0.8 | 122 | Bacterium enrichment (GU196246, 98%) | |
| Unclassfied | 0 | 0.31 | 140 | Uncultured bacterium (GQ152952, 98%) |
| 0 | 1.01 | 29 | Uncultured bacterium (JQ987976, 100%) | |
| 0.33 | 0 | 79 | Iron-reducing bacterium (FJ802349, 97%) | |
| 0.51 | 0 | 46 | Uncultured bacterium (JQ983412, 97%) | |
| 0.59 | 0 | 168 | Uncultured | |
| Unclassfied | 0 | 0.36 | 9 | Uncultured bacterium (KC408589, 99%) |
| Unclassfied | 0.22 | 0.1 | 125 | Uncultured bacterium (JQ983937, 99%) |
| 0.4 | 0.1 | 156 | Uncultured | |
| Unclassfied | 0 | 1.4 | 113 | Uncultured bacterium (JN792255, 99%) |
| WCHB1-05 ( | 0 | 0.26 | 141 | Uncultured bacterium (JX224526, 99%) |
| WCHB1-50 ( | 0 | 1.01 | 191 | Uncultured bacterium (AJ387902, 96%) |
| Unclassfied | 0 | 1.66 | 54 | Uncultured |
| 0 | 1.01 | 75 | Uncultured bacterium (KC736302, 99%) |
Figure 3Phylogenetic tree based on 16S rRNA gene sequences showing the relationships of OUT 100 with members of the genus. Bootstrap values (>50%) are shown on the nodes from 1000 bootstrap replicates. The scale bar represents 5% difference in nucleotide sequences.
Figure 4Relative abundances of archaeal genera in DPMM and DPME.