| Literature DB >> 26633993 |
Chaowei Yu1, Amitha P Reddy2, Christopher W Simmons3, Blake A Simmons4, Steven W Singer5, Jean S VanderGheynst2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microbial communities enriched from diverse environments have shown considerable promise for the targeted discovery of microorganisms and enzymes for bioconversion of lignocellulose to liquid fuels. While preservation of microbial communities is important for commercialization and research, few studies have examined storage conditions ideal for preservation. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of preservation method on composition of microbial communities enriched on switchgrass before and after storage. The enrichments were completed in a high-solid and aerobic environment at 55 °C. Community composition was examined for each enrichment to determine when a stable community was achieved. Preservation methods included cryopreservation with the cryoprotective agents DMSO and glycerol, and cryopreservation without cryoprotective agents. Revived communities were examined for their ability to decompose switchgrass under high-solid and thermophilic conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Biological lignocellulose deconstruction; Cryopreservation; Microbial community enrichment
Year: 2015 PMID: 26633993 PMCID: PMC4667496 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-015-0392-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1Carbon dioxide evolution rate (CER) profiles for a the first (T1) 2 weeks and b sixth (T6) 2 weeks of the enrichment study for individual reactors (R20, R21 and R23)
Cumulative carbon dioxide evolution rate (cCER) for each enrichment
| Mean cCER (mg CO2 g−1 dry matter)a | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-day | 5-day | 12.7-day | |
| T1 | 90 (7) A | 128 (8) A | 258 (24) A |
| T2 | 98 (9) A,B | 147 (11) A,B | 280 (16) A |
| T3 | 119 (7) C,D | 176 (10) C | 312 (25) A,B |
| T4 | 113 (14) B,C | 160 (26) C | 293 (67) A,B |
| T5 | 119 (7) C,D | 168 (11) C,D | 294 (29) A,B |
| T6 | 136 (10) D | 204 (21) D | 400 (71) B |
aStandard deviation in parenthesis (n = 3). Means followed by the same letter within incubation periods are not statistically different at α = 0.05 based on Tukey–Kramer HSD test, blocked by reactor
Fig. 2Non-metric multidimensional scaling plot of microbial communities grouped by enrichment time points. Three replicates are shown for all time periods except T4 samples which had 2 replicates
Fig. 3Relative abundance of phyla in communities at enrichment time T0, T1, and T6
Mean relative abundance (%) of dominant phyla in communities T1 and T6
| Acidobacteria | Actinobacteria | Bacteroidetes | Chloroflexi | Firmicutes | Planctomycetes | Proteobacteria | Verrucomicrobia | Gemmatimonadetes | Other phyla | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 1.84 A | 13.11 A | 23.75 A | 9.18 A | 8.34 A | 1.27 A | 35.22 A | 1.73 A | 0.61 A | 4.96 A |
| T6 | 4.39 B | 15.66 A | 15.41 B | 16.78 B | 5.94 B | 1.73 B | 32.76 A | 2.03 A | 0.29 A | 5.03 A |
Means followed by the same letter within columns are not statistically different at α = 0.05 based on Tukey–Kramer HSD test
Fig. 4Bray–Curtis dissimilarity values for communities compared at different enrichment times
Mean Shannon diversity, richness, Pielou’s evenness and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity values for microbial communities by enrichment times
| Shannon diversity | Richness | Evenness | Bray–Curtis dissimilarity comparisons to T1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | 4.20 | 790 | 0.63 | 0.87 |
| T1 | 3.18 A | 268 A | 0.57 A | 0 |
| T2 | 3.06 A | 192 B | 0.58 A,B | 0.22 A |
| T3 | 3.02 A | 160 C | 0.59 A,B | 0.26 A,B |
| T4 | 3.07 | 154 | 0.61 | 0.33 |
| T5 | 3.07 A | 156 C | 0.61 B | 0.32 B |
| T6 | 3.11 A | 155 C | 0.62 B | 0.33 B |
Means followed by the same letter within columns are not statistically different at α = 0.05 based on Tukey–Kramer HSD test, blocked by reactor. Time point 4 was excluded from the statistical analysis due to insufficient DNA in one sample. T0 included only one sample
OTUs that contribute >4 % to Bray–Curtis dissimilarity between T1 and T6 communities
| Reactor | Abundance in T1 sample (%) | Abundance in T6 sample (%) | % Contribution to dissimilarity | OTU classificationa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R20 | 23.59 | 17.96 | 9.91 |
|
| R20 | 2.62 | 7.80 | 9.11 |
|
| R20 | 2.92 | 7.69 | 8.40 |
|
| R20 | 6.39 | 2.88 | 6.17 |
|
| R20 | 2.62 | 5.55 | 5.16 |
|
| R20 | 2.39 | 0 | 4.21 |
|
| R21 | 22.49 | 15.08 | 11.54 |
|
| R21 | 0.01 | 5.94 | 9.23 |
|
| R21 | 4.23 | 9.06 | 7.52 |
|
| R21 | 2.60 | 6.93 | 6.74 |
|
| R21 | 6.29 | 3.27 | 4.70 |
|
| R23 | 24.58 | 12.68 | 15.88 |
|
| R23 | 5.17 | 11.02 | 7.80 |
|
| R23 | 0.67 | 6.27 | 7.47 |
|
| R23 | 4.17 | 0.40 | 5.02 |
|
| R23 | 6.31 | 2.64 | 4.89 |
|
| R23 | 1.21 | 4.41 | 4.27 |
|
aLetter codes indicate the highest resolved taxonomy from phylogenetic binning: k kingdom, p phylum, c class, o order, f family, g genus
Cumulative carbon dioxide evolution rate (cCER) of control (T7) and stored treatments measured after 3, 6 and 12.7 days of incubation
| Mean cCER (mg CO2 g−1 dry matter)b | Mean ratioa | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-day | 6-day | 12.7-day | 3-day | 6-day | 12.7-day | |
| T7 | 125 (17) AB | 250 (66) A | 369 (97) A | 0.91 A | 1.06 A | 0.96 A |
| −80 °C | 97 (31) BC | 156 (34) B | 311 (36) A | 0.70 B | 0.66 B | 0.83 A |
| DMSO | 91 (15) C | 161 (22) B | 388 (31) A | 0.66 B | 0.69 B | 1.07 A |
| Glycerol | 130 (34) A | 228 (58) A | 384 (70) A | 0.94 A | 0.97 A | 1.02 A |
aRatio of (cCER post storage)/(cCER of T6)
bStandard deviation in parenthesis (n = 3). Means followed by the same letter within columns and incubation periods are not statistically different at α = 0.05 based on Tukey–Kramer HSD test, blocked by reactor
Fig. 5Non-metric multidimensional scaling plot of microbial communities grouped by storage methods
Mean Shannon diversity, richness, Pielou’s evenness and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity values for microbial communities from different treatments
| Shannon diversitya | Richnessa | Evennessa | Bray–Curtis dissimilarity comparison to inoculuma | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inoculum | 3.11 A,B | 155 A | 0.62 A,B | 0 |
| Control | 3.20 A | 160 A | 0.63 A | 0.21 A |
| DMSO | 2.71 B | 131 B | 0.56 B | 0.39 A,B |
| Glycerol | 2.83 A,B | 132 B | 0.58 A,B | 0.41 B |
aMeans followed by the same letter within columns are not statistically different at α = 0.05 based on Tukey–Kramer HSD test, blocked by reactor
Mean relative abundance (%) of phyla in communities
| Acidobacteria | Actinobacteria | Bacteroidetes | Chloroflexi | Firmicutes | Planctomycetes | Proteobacteria | Verrucomicrobia | Other phyla | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inoculum | 4.39 A | 15.66 A | 15.41 A | 16.78 A | 5.94 A | 1.73 A | 32.76 A | 2.03 A | 5.31 A |
| Control | 4.81 A | 17.89 A | 9.27 A | 15.3 A | 6.60 A,B | 1.60 A,B | 38.82 A | 1.48 A | 4.20 A,B |
| DMSO | 6.11 A | 30.23 B | 17.20 A | 4.75 B | 11.35 B,C | 0.24 C | 27.02 A | 0.99 A | 2.11 A,B |
| Glycerol | 4.56 A | 24.92 B | 17.55 A | 3.46 B | 11.75 C | 0.63 B,C | 34.69 A | 1.13 A | 1.30 B |
Means followed by the same letter within columns are not statistically different at α = 0.05 based on Tukey–Kramer HSD test, blocked by reactor (n = 3)
OTUs that contribute >4 % to Bray–Curtis dissimilarity between inoculum communities (T6) and control (T7) communities
| Reactor | Abundance in T6 sample (%) | Abundance in T7 sample (%) | % Contribution to dissimilarity | OTU classificationa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R20 | 17.96 | 5.45 | 18.19 |
|
| R20 | 5.55 | 0.84 | 6.85 |
|
| R20 | 0.06 | 4.76 | 6.83 |
|
| R20 | 5.57 | 1.08 | 6.54 |
|
| R20 | 0.21 | 4.11 | 5.66 |
|
| R20 | 1.52 | 5.13 | 5.25 |
|
| R21 | 6.93 | 15.39 | 22.55 |
|
| R21 | 15.08 | 9.41 | 15.13 |
|
| R21 | 3.93 | 7.51 | 9.55 |
|
| R21 | 5.94 | 3.32 | 6.97 |
|
| R21 | 3.21 | 1.00 | 5.89 |
|
| R23 | 11.02 | 13.05 | 10.98 |
|
| R23 | 6.27 | 4.49 | 9.64 |
|
| R23 | 4.83 | 3.21 | 8.75 |
|
| R23 | 0.42 | 1.53 | 5.99 |
|
| R23 | 1.44 | 0.38 | 5.71 |
|
| R23 | 4.72 | 5.54 | 4.46 |
|
| R23 | 0.77 | 1.59 | 4.46 |
|
aLetter codes indicate the highest resolved taxonomy from phylogenetic binning: k kingdom, p phylum, c class, o order, f family, g genus
OTUs that contribute >4 % to Bray–Curtis dissimilarity between inoculum communities (T6) and DMSO communities
| Reactor | Abundance in T6 sample (%) | Abundance in DMSO sample (%) | % Contribution to dissimilarity | OTU classificationa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R20 | 7.69 | 27.96 | 25.35 |
|
| R20 | 18.47 | 7.04 | 14.29 |
|
| R20 | 2.69 | 8.62 | 7.41 |
|
| R20 | 5.55 | 0.77 | 5.98 |
|
| R20 | 5.57 | 0.80 | 5.96 |
|
| R20 | 0.38 | 5.01 | 5.79 |
|
| R20 | 7.80 | 4.31 | 4.36 |
|
| R21 | 6.93 | 27.67 | 20.96 |
|
| R21 | 17.14 | 2.06 | 15.23 |
|
| R21 | 1.02 | 9.20 | 8.26 |
|
| R21 | 9.06 | 1.57 | 7.56 |
|
| R21 | 15.08 | 22.51 | 7.51 |
|
| R21 | 5.94 | 0.04 | 5.96 |
|
| R23 | 6.27 | 19.91 | 23.80 |
|
| R23 | 11.02 | 4.48 | 11.42 |
|
| R23 | 0.15 | 5.50 | 9.33 |
|
| R23 | 4.72 | 1.72 | 5.24 |
|
| R23 | 4.17 | 1.64 | 4.43 |
|
aLetter codes indicate the highest resolved taxonomy from phylogenetic binning: k kingdom, p phylum, c class, o order, f family, g genus
OTUs that contribute >4 % to Bray–Curtis dissimilarity between inoculum communities (T6) and glycerol communities
| Reactor | Abundance in T6 sample (%) | Abundance in glycerol sample (%) | % Contribution to dissimilarity | OTU classificationa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R20 | 18.47 | 2.43 | 17.06 |
|
| R20 | 7.69 | 23.71 | 17.03 |
|
| R20 | 2.69 | 11.05 | 8.89 |
|
| R20 | 7.80 | 1.12 | 7.10 |
|
| R20 | 0.38 | 6.79 | 6.82 |
|
| R20 | 5.57 | 0.35 | 5.55 |
|
| R20 | 5.55 | 0.35 | 5.53 |
|
| R21 | 6.93 | 22.47 | 18.20 |
|
| R21 | 17.14 | 4.59 | 14.69 |
|
| R21 | 1.02 | 9.76 | 10.23 |
|
| R21 | 5.94 | 0.03 | 6.92 |
|
| R21 | 3.93 | 8.88 | 5.79 |
|
| R21 | 9.06 | 4.45 | 5.39 |
|
| R23 | 6.27 | 16.21 | 14.83 |
|
| R23 | 11.02 | 1.94 | 13.54 |
|
| R23 | 12.68 | 18.47 | 8.64 |
|
| R23 | 4.72 | 0.97 | 5.59 |
|
| R23 | 1.58 | 5.29 | 5.52 |
|
| R23 | 4.17 | 0.79 | 5.04 |
|
| R23 | 1.44 | 4.65 | 4.79 |
|
aLetter codes indicate the highest resolved taxonomy from phylogenetic binning: k kingdom, p phylum, c class, o order, f family, g genus