Literature DB >> 26229594

Deeply sequenced metagenome and metatranscriptome of a biogas-producing microbial community from an agricultural production-scale biogas plant.

Andreas Bremges1, Irena Maus2, Peter Belmann1, Felix Eikmeyer2, Anika Winkler2, Andreas Albersmeier2, Alfred Pühler2, Andreas Schlüter2, Alexander Sczyrba1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The production of biogas takes place under anaerobic conditions and involves microbial decomposition of organic matter. Most of the participating microbes are still unknown and non-cultivable. Accordingly, shotgun metagenome sequencing currently is the method of choice to obtain insights into community composition and the genetic repertoire.
FINDINGS: Here, we report on the deeply sequenced metagenome and metatranscriptome of a complex biogas-producing microbial community from an agricultural production-scale biogas plant. We assembled the metagenome and, as an example application, show that we reconstructed most genes involved in the methane metabolism, a key pathway involving methanogenesis performed by methanogenic Archaea. This result indicates that there is sufficient sequencing coverage for most downstream analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Sequenced at least one order of magnitude deeper than previous studies, our metagenome data will enable new insights into community composition and the genetic potential of important community members. Moreover, mapping of transcripts to reconstructed genome sequences will enable the identification of active metabolic pathways in target organisms.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anaerobic digestion; Assembly; Biogas; Metagenomics; Metatranscriptomics; Methanogenesis; Sequencing; Wet fermentation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26229594      PMCID: PMC4520284          DOI: 10.1186/s13742-015-0073-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gigascience        ISSN: 2047-217X            Impact factor:   6.524


Data description

Background

Production of biogas by anaerobic digestion of biomass is becoming increasingly important, as biogas is regarded a clean, renewable and environmentally compatible energy source [1]. Moreover, generation of energy from biogas relies on a balanced carbon dioxide cycle. Biogas production takes place under anaerobic conditions and involves microbial decomposition of organic matter, yielding methane as the main final product of the fermentation process. Complex consortia of microorganisms are responsible for biomass decomposition and biogas production. The majority of the participating microbes are still unknown, as is their influence on reactor performance. Because most of the organisms in biogas communities are non-cultivable by today’s conventional microbiological techniques, sequencing of metagenomic total community DNA currently is the best way to obtain unbiased insights into community composition and the metabolic potential of key community members. Here, we describe the deeply sequenced metagenome and metatranscriptome of an agricultural production-scale biogas plant on the Illumina platform [2]. We sequenced the metagenome 27X and 19X deeper, respectively, than previous studies applying 454 or SOLiD sequencing [3, 4], which focused primarily on community composition. Metatranscriptomic sequencing of total community RNA, 230X deeper than previously reported [5], complements the metagenome. Combined, these data will enable a deeper exploration of the biogas-producing microbial community, with the objective of developing rational strategies for process optimization.

Digester management and process characterization

The biogas plant, located in North Rhine Westphalia, Germany, features a mesophilic continuous wet fermentation technology characterized recently [6]. It was designed for a capacity of 537 kW combined heat and power (CHP) generation. The process comprises three digesters: a primary and secondary digester, where the main proportion of biogas is produced, and a storage tank, where the digestate is fermented thereafter. The primary digester is fed hourly with a mixture of 72 % maize silage and 28 % liquid pig manure. The biogas and methane yields at the time of sampling were at 810.5 and 417.8 liters per kg organic dry matter (l/kgoDM), respectively. After a retention time of 55 days, the digestate is stored in the closed, non-heated final storage tank. Further information is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Characteristics of the studied biogas plant’s primary digester at the sampling date 15 November 2010

Process parameterSample
Net volume2,041 m 3
Dimensions6.4 m high, diameter of 21 m
Electrical capacity537 k W e
pH7.83
Temperature40 °C
Conductivity22.10 m S/c m
Volative organic acids (VOA)5,327 m g/l
Total inorganic carbon (TIC)14,397 m g/l
VOA/TIC0.37
Ammoniacal nitrogen2.93 g/l
Acetic acid863 m g/l
Propionic acid76 m g/l
Fed substrates72 % maize silage, 28 % pig manure
Organic load4.0 k g o D M m −3 d −1
Retention time55 d a y s
Biogas yield810.5 l/k g o D M
Methane yield417.8 l/k g o D M
Characteristics of the studied biogas plant’s primary digester at the sampling date 15 November 2010

Sampling and library construction

Samples from the primary digester of the biogas plant were taken in November 2010. Before the sampling process, approximately 15 l of the fermenter substrate were discarded before aliquots of 1 l were transferred into clean, gastight sampling vessels and transported directly to the laboratory. For the metagenome, aliquots of 20 g of the fermentation sample were used for total community DNA preparation as described previously [7]. For the metatranscriptome, a random-primed cDNA library was prepared by an external vendor (Vertis Biotechnologie AG). Briefly, total RNA was first treated with 5′-P dependent Terminator exonuclease (Epicentre) to enrich for full-length mRNA carrying 5′ cap or triphosphate structures. Then, first-strand cDNA was synthesized using a N6 random primer and M-MLV-RNase H reverse transcriptase, and second-strand cDNA synthesis was performed according to the Gubler-Hoffman protocol [8].

Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic sequencing

We sequenced one metatranscriptome and two metagenome shotgun libraries on Illumina’s Genome Analyzer IIx system, applying the Paired-End DNA Sample Preparation Kit (Illumina Inc.) as described by the manufacturer to generate 2×161 bp paired-end reads. On Illumina’s MiSeq system, we sequenced three further metagenome shotgun libraries, applying the Nextera DNA Sample Preparation Kit (Illumina Inc.) as described by the manufacturer to generate 2×155 bp paired-end reads. Our sequencing efforts, yielding 35 Gbp in total, are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

Overview of the different sequencing libraries

AccessionLibrary nameLibrary typeInsert size CyclesReadsBases
ERS697694GAIIx, Lane 6RNA, TruSeq202±492×16178,752,30812,679,121,588
ERS697688GAIIx, Lane 7DNA, TruSeq157±192×16154,630,0908,795,444,490
ERS697689GAIIx, Lane 8DNA, TruSeq298±322×16174,547,25212,002,107,572
ERS697690MiSeq, Run A1 DNA, Nextera173±532×1554,915,698761,933,190
ERS697691MiSeq, Run A2 DNA, Nextera 522±882×1551,927,244298,722,820
ERS697692MiSeq, Run B1 DNA, Nextera249±302×1553,840,850573,901,713
ERS697693MiSeq, Run B2 DNA, Nextera 525±902×1554,114,304614,787,564

*Insert sizes determined with Picard tools. Partial runs. This Nextera library was sequenced twice

Overview of the different sequencing libraries *Insert sizes determined with Picard tools. Partial runs. This Nextera library was sequenced twice

Metagenome assembly

Prior to assembly, we used Trimmomatic [9] version 0.33 for adapter removal and moderate quality trimming. After adapter clipping, using Trimmomatic’s Truseq2-PE and Nextera-PE templates, we removed leading and trailing ambiguous or low quality bases (below Phred quality scores of 3). Table 3 summarizes the effect on sequencing depth, more than 25 Gbp of sequence data passed quality control.
Table 3

Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic sequencing and quality control (QC)

Library typeReads, rawReads, post-QCBases, rawBases, post-QC
Metagenome (total)143,975,438137,365,05323,046,897,34917,267,320,221
Metatranscriptome78,752,30873,165,98612,679,121,5888,455,809,264
Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic sequencing and quality control (QC) We assembled the metagenome with Ray Meta [10] version 2.3.1, trying a range of k-mer sizes from 21 to 61 in steps of 10. To estimate the inclusivity of the set of assemblies, we aligned the post-quality-control sequencing reads to the assembled contigs with bowtie2 [11] version 2.2.4. We then used samtools [12] version 1.1 to convert SAM to BAM, sort the alignment file and calculate the mapping statistics. Given the total assembly size and contiguity and the percentage of mapped back metagenomic reads, we selected the assembly produced with a k-mer size of 31. Here, we assembled approximately 228 Mbp in 54,489 contigs greater than 1,000 bp, with an N50 value of 9,796 bp. 77 % (79 %) of metagenomic (metatranscriptomic) reads mapped back to this assembly.

Gene prediction and annotation

We used MetaProdigal [13] version 2.6.1 to predict 250,596 protein-coding genes on the assembled contigs. We compared the protein sequences of all predicted genes with the KEGG database [14] release 72.0 using Protein-Protein BLAST [15] version 2.2.29+. Of the 250,596 predicted genes, 191,766 (76.5 %) had a match in the KEGG database using an E-value cutoff of 10−6. We determined the KEGG orthology (KO) for each gene by mapping the top-scoring BLAST hit to its orthologous gene in KEGG, resulting in 109,501 genes with an assigned KO. Table 4 summarizes our results.
Table 4

Metagenome assembly statistics, minimum contig size of 1,000 b p

Assembly metricOur assembly
Total size228,382,457 b p
Number of contigs54,489
N50 value9,796 b p
Largest contig333,979 b p
Mapped DNA reads105,461,596 (77 %)
Mapped RNA reads57,436,058 (79 %)
Predicted genes250,596
Of these, full-length172,372 (69 %)
Match in KEGG Genes191,766
Of these, assigned KO109,501
Of these, in KEGG pathways61,100
Metagenome assembly statistics, minimum contig size of 1,000 b p

Relating the metagenome and the metatranscriptome

To illustrate potential use cases, we first counted the number of reads within genes using BEDTools [16] version 2.22.0. The metagenomic and metatranscriptomic coverage of the methane metabolism pathway is shown in Fig. 1. This shows that we have assembled the majority of genes involved in the methane metabolism from our metagenomic data, with accompanying metatranscriptomic data suggesting active gene expression for many.
Fig. 1

Methane metabolism pathway analysis. Genes reconstructed in our assembly that are involved in the methane metabolism [PATH:ko00680, (http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?ko00680)], are highlighted: genes with only metagenomic support are in yellow and genes with metatranscriptomic support as well, suggesting active gene expression, are in orange. Methane is synthesized from CO2, methanol or acetate. KEGG pathway map courtesy of Kanehisa Laboratories

Methane metabolism pathway analysis. Genes reconstructed in our assembly that are involved in the methane metabolism [PATH:ko00680, (http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?ko00680)], are highlighted: genes with only metagenomic support are in yellow and genes with metatranscriptomic support as well, suggesting active gene expression, are in orange. Methane is synthesized from CO2, methanol or acetate. KEGG pathway map courtesy of Kanehisa Laboratories For a second example, we calculated the reads per kilobase per million mapped reads (RPKM) for each gene as a crude measure for abundance (metagenome) or expression (metatranscriptome). Figure 2 relates the two and highlights all genes assigned to any of the three known types of methanogenic pathways. Hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, that is, the reduction of CO2 with hydrogen, appears to be highly expressed in the reactor analyzed, which is in agreement with results obtained by 454 amplicon and metatranscriptome sequencing [5].
Fig. 2

Relating the metagenome and metatranscriptome. Genes involved in methanogenesis are color coded by pathway type: CO2 to methane [MD:M00567, (http://www.kegg.jp/kegg-bin/show_module?M00567)] in green (96 genes), methanol to methane [MD:M00356, (http://www.kegg.jp/kegg-bin/show_module?M00356)] in red (5 genes) and acetate to methane [MD:M00357, (http://www.kegg.jp/kegg-bin/show_module?M00357)] in blue (209 genes). Common genes, shared between pathway types, are yellow (80 genes). In the background is a two-dimensional density estimation for all 250,596 genes

Relating the metagenome and metatranscriptome. Genes involved in methanogenesis are color coded by pathway type: CO2 to methane [MD:M00567, (http://www.kegg.jp/kegg-bin/show_module?M00567)] in green (96 genes), methanol to methane [MD:M00356, (http://www.kegg.jp/kegg-bin/show_module?M00356)] in red (5 genes) and acetate to methane [MD:M00357, (http://www.kegg.jp/kegg-bin/show_module?M00357)] in blue (209 genes). Common genes, shared between pathway types, are yellow (80 genes). In the background is a two-dimensional density estimation for all 250,596 genes

Discussion

We report extensive metagenomic and metatranscriptomic profiling of the microbial community from a production-scale biogas plant. Given the unprecedented sequencing depth and established bioinformatics, our data will be of great interest to the biogas research community in general and microbiologists working on biogas-producing microbial communities in particular. In a first applied study, our metagenome assembly was used to improve the characterization of a metaproteome generated from biogas plant fermentation samples and to investigate the metabolic activity of the microbial community [17]. By sharing our data, we want to actively encourage its reuse. This will hopefully result in novel biological and biotechnological insights, eventually enabling a more efficient biogas production.

Availability of supporting data

Data accession

Raw sequencing data are available in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under study accession PRJEB8813 (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB8813). The datasets supporting the results of this article are available in GigaScience’s GigaDB [2].

Reproducibility

The complete workflow is organized in a single GNU Makefile and available on GitHub [18]. All data and results can be reproduced by a simple invocation of make. To further support reproducibility, we bundled all tools and dependencies into one Docker container available on DockerHub [19]. docker run executes the aforementioned Makefile inside the container. Reproduction requires roughly 89 GiB memory and 83 GiB storage, and takes less than 24 hours on 32 CPU cores. Excluding the KEGG analysis, which relies on a commercial license of the KEGG database, all steps are performed using free and open-source software.
  17 in total

1.  Fractionation of biogas plant sludge material improves metaproteomic characterization to investigate metabolic activity of microbial communities.

Authors:  Fabian Kohrs; Sophie Wolter; Dirk Benndorf; Robert Heyer; Marcus Hoffmann; Erdmann Rapp; Andreas Bremges; Alexander Sczyrba; Andreas Schlüter; Udo Reichl
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 3.984

2.  Gene and translation initiation site prediction in metagenomic sequences.

Authors:  Doug Hyatt; Philip F LoCascio; Loren J Hauser; Edward C Uberbacher
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  A simple and very efficient method for generating cDNA libraries.

Authors:  U Gubler; B J Hoffman
Journal:  Gene       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 3.688

4.  BLAST+: architecture and applications.

Authors:  Christiam Camacho; George Coulouris; Vahram Avagyan; Ning Ma; Jason Papadopoulos; Kevin Bealer; Thomas L Madden
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 3.169

5.  Ray Meta: scalable de novo metagenome assembly and profiling.

Authors:  Sébastien Boisvert; Frédéric Raymond; Elénie Godzaridis; François Laviolette; Jacques Corbeil
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2012-12-22       Impact factor: 13.583

6.  BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features.

Authors:  Aaron R Quinlan; Ira M Hall
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 6.937

7.  Characterization of a biogas-producing microbial community by short-read next generation DNA sequencing.

Authors:  Roland Wirth; Etelka Kovács; Gergely Maróti; Zoltán Bagi; Gábor Rákhely; Kornél L Kovács
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 6.040

8.  Comparative and joint analysis of two metagenomic datasets from a biogas fermenter obtained by 454-pyrosequencing.

Authors:  Sebastian Jaenicke; Christina Ander; Thomas Bekel; Regina Bisdorf; Marcus Dröge; Karl-Heinz Gartemann; Sebastian Jünemann; Olaf Kaiser; Lutz Krause; Felix Tille; Martha Zakrzewski; Alfred Pühler; Andreas Schlüter; Alexander Goesmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG.

Authors:  Minoru Kanehisa; Susumu Goto; Yoko Sato; Masayuki Kawashima; Miho Furumichi; Mao Tanabe
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data.

Authors:  Anthony M Bolger; Marc Lohse; Bjoern Usadel
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 6.937

View more
  24 in total

1.  Science in the cloud (SIC): A use case in MRI connectomics.

Authors:  Gregory Kiar; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski; Dean Kleissas; William Gray Roncal; Brian Litt; Brian Wandell; Russel A Poldrack; Martin Wiener; R Jacob Vogelstein; Randal Burns; Joshua T Vogelstein
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 6.524

2.  IMP: a pipeline for reproducible reference-independent integrated metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analyses.

Authors:  Shaman Narayanasamy; Yohan Jarosz; Emilie E L Muller; Anna Heintz-Buschart; Malte Herold; Anne Kaysen; Cédric C Laczny; Nicolás Pinel; Patrick May; Paul Wilmes
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 13.583

Review 3.  Tools and techniques for computational reproducibility.

Authors:  Stephen R Piccolo; Michael B Frampton
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 6.524

4.  Impact of Glyphosate on the Rhizosphere Microbial Communities of An EPSPS-Transgenic Soybean Line ZUTS31 by Metagenome Sequencing.

Authors:  Gui-Hua Lu; Xiao-Mei Hua; Jing Cheng; Yin-Ling Zhu; Gu-Hao Wang; Yan-Jun Pang; Rong-Wu Yang; Lei Zhang; Huixia Shou; Xiao-Ming Wang; Jinliang Qi; Yong-Hua Yang
Journal:  Curr Genomics       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.236

5.  Deeply sequenced metagenome and metatranscriptome of a biogas-producing microbial community from an agricultural production-scale biogas plant.

Authors:  Andreas Bremges; Irena Maus; Peter Belmann; Felix Eikmeyer; Anika Winkler; Andreas Albersmeier; Alfred Pühler; Andreas Schlüter; Alexander Sczyrba
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 6.524

6.  Identification and genome reconstruction of abundant distinct taxa in microbiomes from one thermophilic and three mesophilic production-scale biogas plants.

Authors:  Yvonne Stolze; Andreas Bremges; Madis Rumming; Christian Henke; Irena Maus; Alfred Pühler; Alexander Sczyrba; Andreas Schlüter
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 6.040

7.  Metagenomic analysis and functional characterization of the biogas microbiome using high throughput shotgun sequencing and a novel binning strategy.

Authors:  Stefano Campanaro; Laura Treu; Panagiotis G Kougias; Davide De Francisci; Giorgio Valle; Irini Angelidaki
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 6.040

8.  Proteotyping of biogas plant microbiomes separates biogas plants according to process temperature and reactor type.

Authors:  R Heyer; D Benndorf; F Kohrs; J De Vrieze; N Boon; M Hoffmann; E Rapp; Andreas Schlüter; Alexander Sczyrba; U Reichl
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 6.040

9.  Taxonomy of anaerobic digestion microbiome reveals biases associated with the applied high throughput sequencing strategies.

Authors:  Stefano Campanaro; Laura Treu; Panagiotis G Kougias; Xinyu Zhu; Irini Angelidaki
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Genomics and prevalence of bacterial and archaeal isolates from biogas-producing microbiomes.

Authors:  Irena Maus; Andreas Bremges; Yvonne Stolze; Sarah Hahnke; Katharina G Cibis; Daniela E Koeck; Yong S Kim; Jana Kreubel; Julia Hassa; Daniel Wibberg; Aaron Weimann; Sandra Off; Robbin Stantscheff; Vladimir V Zverlov; Wolfgang H Schwarz; Helmut König; Wolfgang Liebl; Paul Scherer; Alice C McHardy; Alexander Sczyrba; Michael Klocke; Alfred Pühler; Andreas Schlüter
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 6.040

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.