| Literature DB >> 28984418 |
Ya He1, Jacques Mathieu1, Marcio L B da Silva1, Mengyan Li2, Pedro J J Alvarez1.
Abstract
Two bacterial consortia were enriched from uncontaminated soil by virtue of their ability to grow on 1,4-dioxane (dioxane) as a sole carbon and energy source. Their specific dioxane degradation rates at 30°C, pH = 7 (i.e. 5.7 to 7.1 g-dioxane per g-protein per day) were comparable to those of two dioxane-metabolizing archetypes: Pseudonocardia dioxanivoransCB1190 and Mycobacterium dioxanotrophicusPH-06. Based on 16S rRNA sequencing, Mycobacterium was the dominant genus. Acetylene inhibition tests suggest that dioxane degradation was mediated by monooxygenases. However, qPCR analyses targeting the tetrahydrofuran/dioxane monooxygenase gene (thmA/dxmA) (which is, to date, the only sequenced dioxane monooxygenase gene) were negative, indicating that other (as yet unknown) catabolic gene(s) were responsible. DNA sequence analyses also showed threefold to sevenfold enrichment of group 5 and group 6 soluble di-iron monooxygenase (SDIMO) genes relative to the original soil samples. Whereas biodegradation of trace levels of dioxane is a common challenge at contaminated sites, both consortia degraded dioxane at low initial concentrations (300 μg l-1 ) below detectable levels (5 μg l-1 ) in bioaugmented microcosms prepared with impacted groundwater. Overall, this work shows that dioxane-degrading bacteria (and the associated natural attenuation potential) exist even in some uncontaminated soils, and may be enriched to broaden bioaugmentation options for sites experiencing insufficient dioxane catabolic capacity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28984418 PMCID: PMC5743803 DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.12850
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Biotechnol ISSN: 1751-7915 Impact factor: 5.813
Bacteria capable of metabolizing or cometabolizing dioxane
| Bacterial strain | Dioxane metabolism | Cosubstrate | Inoculum source | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| + | − | WWTP effluent | (Bernhardt and Diekmann, |
|
| + | − | Industrial sludge from a dioxane contaminated site | (Parales |
|
| + | − | Soil contaminated by various chlorinated, aromatic compounds | (Kämpfer and Kroppenstedt, |
|
| + | − | River sediment contaminated by dioxane | (Kim |
|
| + | − | Soil samples near a dioxane producing factory | (Sei |
|
| + | − | Same as above | (Sei |
|
| + | − | Same as above | (Sei |
|
| + | − | Same as above | (Sei |
|
| + | − | WWTP sludge | (Huang |
|
| + | − | Industrial sludge | (Pugazhendi |
|
| + | − | Activated sludge of pharmaceutical plants | (Chen |
|
| − | Tetrahydrofuran | WWTP sludge | (Kohlweyer |
|
| − | Tetrahydrofuran | Industrial wastewater treatment system | (Vainberg |
|
| − | Tetrahydrofuran | Landfill soil | (Sei |
|
| − | Tetrahydrofuran | WWTP Sludge | (Sei |
|
| − | Tetrahydrofuran | A contaminated groundwater plume | (Sun |
|
| − | Propane | Soil samples with hydrocarbons | (Ooyama and Foster, |
|
| − | Propane | Turf soil enriched with propane | (Masuda, |
|
| − | Propane | Turf soil samples enriched with propane | (Steffan |
|
| − | Toluene | Algal‐bacterial mat from Colorado River in Austin | (Whited and Gibson, |
|
| − | Toluene | Gasoline contaminated aquifer | (Stringfellow and Alvarez‐Cohen, |
|
| − | Toluene | Soil microcosms amended with BTEX | (Kukor and Olsen, |
|
| − | Toluene | Water and soil samples | (Nelson |
|
| − | Methane | Mud, river and stream water, soil samples | (Whittenbury |
WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; BTEX, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes.
a. ’+’ and ‘−’ indicate this condition is applicable and not applicable respectively.
Figure 1Dioxane degradation by enriched consortia and two archetypes (left) and concurrent growth of consortia (right). Experiments were conducted using AMS medium with an initial dioxane concentration of 500 mg l−1. The initial biomass densities (measured as protein content) were 25 mg l−1 for CB1190, 32 mg l−1 for PH‐06, 19 mg l−1 for Consortium A and 36 mg l−1 for Consortium B. The controls contained autoclaved bacteria.
Figure 2Dioxane degradation in various bioaugmented microcosms. Experiments were conducted using groundwater (initial dioxane concentration was 300 µg l−1) from a dioxane‐impacted site in Seattle, Washington, USA, T = 15°C. The added bacterial biomass measured as protein content was 20 mg l−1 for CB1190, 32 mg l−1 for PH‐06, 48 mg l−1 for Consortium A and 18 mg l−1 for Consortium B.
Three most abundant genera before and after enrichment
| Consortium A | Consortium B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genus name | Percentage (%) | Genus name | Percentage (%) | ||
| Before | After | Before | After | ||
|
|
| 0.00 |
|
| 0.00 |
|
|
| 0.00 |
|
| 0.00 |
|
|
| 0.00 |
|
| 0.00 |
|
| 0.1 |
|
| 0.2 |
|
|
| 0.04 |
|
| 0.01 |
|
|
| 0.08 |
|
| 0.03 |
|
Figure in bold represents significant change before and after enrichment.
Figure 316S rRNA sequencing analyses of the two original soil samples and enriched consortia. The sum of all bacteria genera representing < 2% of total community is indicated as ‘Other’. These sequence data were submitted to the GenBank database under accession number SRP103870.
Figure 4SDIMO gene sequencing of nested PCR products from the original soil samples and enriched consortia. ‘Group 2′, ‘Group 3′, ‘Group 5′ and ‘Group 6′ indicate a high similarity (> 93%) with groups 2, 3, 5 and 6 soluble di‐iron monooxygenase hydroxylase (SDIMOs) alpha subunit genes respectively. ‘Unknown’ indicates no significant similarities with any SDIMO gene sequences available on NCBI. The percentages bars represent the fractions of different SDIMO gene groups in the two consortia. These sequence data were submitted to the GenBank database under accession number SRP103872.