| Literature DB >> 28335448 |
David J Beale1, Avinash V Karpe2,3, Warish Ahmed4, Stephen Cook5, Paul D Morrison6, Christopher Staley7, Michael J Sadowsky8, Enzo A Palombo9.
Abstract
A multi-omics approach was applied to an urban river system (the Brisbane River (BR), Queensland, Australia) in order to investigate surface water quality and characterize the bacterial population with respect to water contaminants. To do this, bacterial metagenomic amplicon-sequencing using Illumina next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the V5-V6 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene and untargeted community metabolomics using gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) were utilized. The multi-omics data, in combination with fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) counts, trace metal concentrations (by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)) and in-situ water quality measurements collected from various locations along the BR were then used to assess the health of the river ecosystem. Sites sampled represented the transition from less affected (upstream) to polluted (downstream) environments along the BR. Chemometric analysis of the combined datasets indicated a clear separation between the sampled environments. Burkholderiales and Cyanobacteria were common key factors for differentiation of pristine waters. Increased sugar alcohol and short-chain fatty acid production was observed by Actinomycetales and Rhodospirillaceae that are known to form biofilms in urban polluted and brackish waters. Results from this study indicate that a multi-omics approach enables a deep understanding of the health of an aquatic ecosystem, providing insight into the bacterial diversity present and the metabolic output of the population when exposed to environmental contaminants.Entities:
Keywords: chemometrics; contaminated system; metabolomics; metagenomics; trace metals; urban river system
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28335448 PMCID: PMC5369139 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14030303
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Map of the Brisbane River (BR) and the selected sampling sites (BR1–BR5).
Sample site description and in-situ water quality characteristics. Water quality parameters were analyzed in triplicate (n = 3) and the relative standard deviation as a percentage (%RSD) are presented in the parentheses.
| BR Site | EHMP Site | GPS Coordinates | Temp. (°C) | Conductivity (mS·cm−1) | Salinity (ppt) | pH | Turbidity (NTU) | DOC * (mg·L−1) | Site Characteristics | Suspected Source of Pollution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BR1 | 714 | 27°23′58” S; | 21.7 | 0.39 | 0.19 | 7.14 | 0.5 | 9.32 | Rural | Wildlife, waterfowl, recreational activities. |
| BR2 | 711 | 27°29′51′′ S; | 28.1 | 0.53 | 0.25 | 8.00 | 5.2 | 9.30 | Rural | Cattle, horses, septic tanks, wildlife. |
| BR3 | 718 | 27°33′8′′ S; | 26.6 | 0.7 | 0.32 | 7.00 | 137 | 8.88 | Peri urban, tidally influenced | Wastewater treatment plants, waterfowls. |
| BR4 | 703 | 27°26′38′′ S; | 25.7 | 46.5 | 30.17 | 7.77 | 15.3 | 4.35 | Urban | Recreational activities, tidal influence. |
| BR5 | 702 | 27°26′56′′ S; | 25.4 | 46.9 | 30.47 | 7.71 | 11.6 | 5.02 | Urban | Port, industrial activities, tidal influence. |
Note: EHMP is defined as “Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program”. * DOC is defined as dissolved organic carbon.
Sample site description and EHMP site matched water quality characteristics.
| BR Site | EHMP Site | Chlorophyll a (μg·L−1) | Light Penetration | Phosphorus as P | Nitrogen as N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRP * | Total | Ammonia | Organic | Oxides | Total | ||||
| BR1 | 714 | 6.30 | 0.45 | 31 | 61 | <4 | 323 | 13 | 340 |
| BR2 | 711 | 0.37 | 0.15 | 240 | 320 | 12 | 368 | 500 | 880 |
| BR3 | 718 | 1.50 | 0.60 | 260 | 270 | 6 | 254 | 550 | 810 |
| BR4 | 703 | 2.24 | 0.50 | 93 | 140 | 8 | 202 | 210 | 420 |
| BR5 | 702 | 2.13 | 0.85 | 64 | 79 | 10 | 190 | 100 | 300 |
Note: EHMP is defined as “Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program”. * FRP is defined as filterable reactive phosphorus.
Concentrations of metals in the water sourced from different sites and attributed to different sources. Values in the parenthesis denote standard deviations between the samples (n = 9).
| BR Site | Concentration of Metals (RSD %) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aluminum | Cadmium | Cobalt | Chromium | Copper | Iron | Lead | Nickel | Zinc | |
| BR1 | 1.0 (>0.1) | <0.04 | 0.04 (4.7) | <0.02 | 3.0 (0.1) | <0.571 | <0.06 | <0.06 | 4.6 (2.3) |
| BR2 | 1.0 (>0.1) | <0.04 | 0.14 (5.3) | <0.02 | 3.1 (0.1) | 32.0 (3.0) | <0.06 | 0.2 (0.1) | 3.6 (0.6) |
| BR3 | 2008 (4.9) | <0.04 | 2.38 (2.4) | 1.0 (0.1) | 8.1 (0.1) | 4529.7 (188.1) | 7.6 (0.2) | 2.8 (0.1) | 36.9 (1.2) |
| BR4 | 1.0 (>0.1) | <0.04 | 0.15 (10.1) | <0.02 | 4.3 (0.6) | 94.1 (59.3) | <0.06 | 0.4 (0.2) | 6.2 (3.1) |
| BR5 | 11.0 (1.9) | <0.04 | 0.26 (3.4) | <0.02 | 4.0 (0.2) | 234.7 (27.6) | <0.06 | 0.4 (0.1) | 6.8 (1.5) |
Microbial water quality based on the various coliform counting methods. Values in the parenthesis indicate standard deviations (n = 9).
| BR Site | Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) a | Recreational Microbial Water Quality Assessment b | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized | Microbial Water Quality Assessment Category (MAC) | |||||
| BR1 | 15 (4) | 4 (2) | 100 | 0 | 2 | A |
| BR2 | 69 (18) | 22 (5) | 100 | 0 | 2 | A |
| BR3 | 307 (49) | 544 (85) | 0 | 100 | 13,300 | D |
| BR4 | 149 (25) | 189 (24) | 0 | 89 | 12,900 | D |
| BR5 | 88 (16) | 163 (37) | 0 | 56 | 10,600 | D |
a Determined using the geometric mean of nine samples (n = 9); b Recreational Microbial Water Quality Assessment calculated using Enterococcus spp. data following the NH&MRC “Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water”; c Calculated using the ranked method (n = 9).
Summary of site bacterial metagenomics characterization.
| BR Sites | Features per Group | Unique Features per Site | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Order | Family | Genus | Order | Family | Genus | |
| BR1 | 121 | 226 | 592 | 3 | 5 | 54 |
| BR2 | 118 | 223 | 562 | 0 | 2 | 33 |
| BR3 | 102 | 186 | 389 | 1 | 4 | 20 |
| BR4 | 117 | 238 | 667 | 3 | 11 | 70 |
| BR5 | 116 | 248 | 741 | 4 | 13 | 78 |
Figure 2Bacterial order (top 17) profile of the BR sample sites. Note: ‘others’ represent orders less than 2% of the total sequence abundance.
Figure 3Bacterial metagenomics similarity and uniqueness characterization based on (A) order; (B) family and (C) genus.
Figure 4PLS-DA plot of the identified metabolites. (A) PLS-DA Score Scatter plot; (B) PLS-DA Loading Scatter plot.
Most significant metabolites from the sampled river sites identified by based on their fold change (FC), p-value and Adjusted (Adj.) p-values.
| Compound | Description | Fold Change | Adj. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monosaccharide sugar | 2.885793773 | 3.60 × 10−6 | 5.00 × 10−2 | |
| Sugar | 1.995251285 | 0.20237 | 3.82 × 10−2 | |
| Glycerol (3TMS) | Component of triglycerides and of phospholipids | 1.850174576 | 0.41024 | 3.13 × 10−2 |
| α- | 1.792927932 | 0.85638 | 9.72 × 10−3 | |
| Psychosine sulfate (dTMS) | Lipid and intermediate in the biosynthesis of cerebrosides | 1.744904803 | 0.049444 | 4.58 × 10−2 |
| Disaccharide sugar | 1.626482976 | 0.0061321 | 4.86 × 10−2 | |
| 2-methyl-2-butenedioic acid (2TMS) | Carboxylic acid | 1.535874614 | 0.4597 | 2.71 × 10−2 |
| Prostaglandin F2β (1MEOX, 4TMS) | Arachidonic acid metabolites | 1.196188199 | 0.1738 | 3.96 × 10−2 |
| End product of | 1.092677384 | 0.60615 | 1.74 × 10−2 | |
| Monosaccharide sugar | 1.041734383 | 0.4944 | 2.08 × 10−2 | |
| n-Octane | Component of Fatty acid metabolism | 0.981496334 | 0.92237 | 3.47 × 10−3 |
| Perillyl alcohol (dTMS) | Isolated from the essential oils | 0.959935677 | 0.60615 | 1.67 × 10−2 |
| Decanoic acid methyl ester (1TMS) | Constituent of many plants | 0.956956828 | 0.44286 | 2.85 × 10−2 |
| Intermediate in biosynthesis of lipopolysaccharide | 0.893785022 | 0.41024 | 3.06 × 10−2 | |
| Amino acid | 0.834176724 | 0.87829 | 6.94 × 10−3 | |
| Erucic acid methyl ester (1TMS) | Fatty acids | 0.790950415 | 0.11213 | 4.17 × 10−2 |
| Capric acid (1TMS) | Fatty acids | 0.790934596 | 0.11213 | 4.24 × 10−2 |
| Aminosaccharide | 0.782548013 | 0.07339 | 4.44 × 10−2 | |
| Phytol (1TMS) | Constituent of chlorophyll | 0.706423756 | 0.034756 | 4.65 × 10−2 |
| Unknown Compound 10 (MW = 206.2) | 0.662675401 | 0.2944 | 3.47 × 10−2 | |
| Erythritol (4TMS) | Sugar alcohol | 0.659587922 | 0.24544 | 3.75 × 10−2 |
| 3,6-anhydro- | 0.6094551 | 0.088429 | 4.38 × 10−2 | |
| Monosaccharide sugar | 0.317429352 | 0.014781 | 4.72 × 10−2 | |
| Carbohydrate | 0.27712129 | 0.58678 | 1.81 × 10−2 | |
| Lithocholic acid (2TMS) | Bile acid formed from chenodeoxycholate by bacterial action | 0.203416434 | 0.58678 | 1.88 × 10−2 |
| Butanoic acid methyl ester (1TMS) | Fatty acid methyl ester | 0.153370303 | 0.96669 | 2.78 × 10−3 |
| 2-methylpropanedioic acid (2TMS) | Malonic acid derivative | 0.152544336 | 0.34935 | 3.33 × 10−2 |
Figure 5Metabolite similarity and uniqueness characterization.
Physico-chemical and microbial water quality summary.
| BR Site | Monitoring Indicators | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physico-Chemical | Microbial | |||||||||||||
| Salinity | Turbidity | pH | Cholorphyll a | TP | FRP | TN | NOx | NH4+ | Metals | FIB (combined) | MAC * | |||
| BR1 | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | L | L | N | A |
| BR2 | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | L | L | N | A |
| BR3 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | H | H | Y | D |
| BR4 | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | H | H | Y | D |
| BR5 | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | H | H | Y | D |
Note: * MAC is defined as the Microbial Water Quality Assessment Category.
Figure 6PLS-DA plot of the metadata and multi-omics datasets based the Microbial Water Quality Assessment Category class assessment. (A) PLS-DA Score Scatter plot; (B) PLS-DA Loading Scatter plot.
Figure 7PLS-DA plot of the metadata and multi-omics datasets based the Microbial Water Quality Assessment Category class assessment. (A) PLS-DA Score Scatter plot; (B) PLS-DA Loading Scatter plot.
Figure 8PLS-DA plot of the metadata and multi-omics datasets based the Microbial Water Quality Assessment Category class and low salinity assessment. (A) PLS-DA Score Scatter plot; (B) PLS-DA Loading Scatter plot.