| Literature DB >> 29057585 |
Hanna Fasca1, Livia V A de Castilho2, João Fabrício M de Castilho2, Ilson P Pasqualino2, Vanessa M Alvarez1, Diogo de Azevedo Jurelevicius1, Lucy Seldin1.
Abstract
The effect of pressure and temperature on microbial communities of marine environments contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons is understudied. This study aims to reveal the responses of marine bacterial communities to low temperature, high pressure, and contamination with petroleum hydrocarbons using seawater samples collected near an offshore Brazilian platform. Microcosms containing only seawater and those containing seawater contaminated with 1% crude oil were subjected to three different treatments of temperature and pressure as follows: (1) 22°C/0.1 MPa; (2) 4°C/0.1 MPa; and (3) 4°C/22 MPa. The effect of depressurization followed by repressurization on bacterial communities was also evaluated (4°C/22 MPaD). The structure and composition of the bacterial communities in the different microcosms were analyzed by PCR-DGGE and DNA sequencing, respectively. Contamination with oil influenced the structure of the bacterial communities in microcosms incubated either at 4°C or 22°C and at low pressure. Incubation at low temperature and high pressure greatly influenced the structure of bacterial communities even in the absence of oil contamination. The 4°C/22 MPa and 4°C/22 MPaD treatments resulted in similar DGGE profiles. DNA sequencing (after 40 days of incubation) revealed that the diversity and relative abundance of bacterial genera were related to the presence or absence of oil contamination in the nonpressurized treatments. In contrast, the variation in the relative abundances of bacterial genera in the 4°C/22 MPa-microcosms either contaminated or not with crude oil was less evident. The highest relative abundance of the phylum Bacteroidetes was observed in the 4°C/22 MPa treatment.Entities:
Keywords: bacterial communities; deep sea; oil contamination; pressure; seawater; temperature
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29057585 PMCID: PMC5912000 DOI: 10.1002/mbo3.550
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiologyopen ISSN: 2045-8827 Impact factor: 3.139
Different microcosms used in this study
| Microcosms (replicates x sampling time = 63) Treatment labels | Temperature 4°C | Temperature 22°C | Pressure 0.1 MPa | Pressure 22 MPa | Oil contamination | 20 days/repressurization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I (3 × 1 = 3) | ||||||
| II (3 × 3 = 9) W22 | x | x | ||||
| III (3 × 3 = 9) WO22 | x | x | x | |||
| IV (3 × 3 = 9) W4 | x | x | ||||
| V (3 × 3 = 9) WO4 | x | x | x | |||
| VI (3 × 3 = 9) WP4 | x | x | ||||
| VII (3 × 3 = 9) WPO4 | x | x | x | |||
| VIII (3 × 1 = 3) WP4 40D | x | x | x | |||
| IX (3 × 1 = 3) WPO4 40D | x | x | x | x |
All microcosms were constructed in triplicate. Microcosms I were those representing the water sample without any treatment, sampled at time zero (T0). The other microcosms were sampled at 10, 20, and 40 days of incubation. The microcosms depressurized after 20 days of incubation and repressurized for another 20 days were only sampled after 40 days incubation. The microcosms subjected to different treatments are labeled with the notation: W—water; P—with pressure of 22 MPa; O—contaminated with oil; 4 or 22—incubation temperature of 4°C or 22°C, respectively; D—pressurized and repressurized microcosms; 10, 20, 40—sampling time (days); 1, 2, or 3—replicate number. For examples, WPO4 40 1 indicates a microcosm that underwent 22 MPa pressure at 4°C, contaminated with oil, sampled after 40 days incubation and is the first replicate of three; W22 40 3 indicates a microcosm that underwent without pressure at 22°C, with no contamination with oil, sampled after 40 days incubation and is the third replicate of three.
Estimated OTUs, richness, and diversity indices based on the OTU‐generated matrices
| Samples (triplicates) | OTUs | Richness (Chao 1) | Diversity (Shannon) | Equitability (Evenness‐EH) | Dominance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | 118 ± 12.29ab
| 125.45 ± 16.4a | 5.24 ± 0.69ac | 0.76 ± 0.10ac | 0.06 ± 0.03ac |
| W22 40 | 134 ± 21a | 146.57 ± 23.67a | 5.94 ± 0.37a | 0.84 ± 0.03a | 0.03 ± 0.01a |
| WO22 40 | 92.7 ± 6.8ab | 109.05 ± 17.53a | 3.34 ± 0.33bc | 0.51 ± 0.06bc | 0.21 ± 0.07bc |
| W4 40 | 118 ± 7.0ab | 125.67 ± 5.25a | 5.97 ± 0.28a | 0.87 ± 0.03a | 0.03 ± 0.01a |
| WO4 40 | 103.3 ± 9.24ab | 115.7 ± 13.3a | 4.15 ± 0.32abc | 0.62 ± 0.04abc | 0.13 ± 0.01ab |
| WP4 40D | 111.7 ± 6.43ab | 133.74 ± 10.75a | 4.74 ± 0.24ac | 0.70 ± 0.04abc | 0.07 ± 0.01ac |
| WPO4 40D | 120 ± 12.17ab | 128.27 ± 12.06a | 5.53 ± 0.67a | 0.80 ± 0.09ac | 0.04 ± 0.02a |
| WP4 40 | 78 | 97.46 | 3.6 | 0.57 | 0.13 |
| WPO4 40 | 113 ± 1.41 | 139.6 ± 1.89 | 4.62 ± 0.07 | 0.68 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.01 |
Different letters indicate statistically significant differences based on Tukey's test (p < .05).
The samples WP4 40 and WPO4 40 were not used for Tukey's test comparison as triplicate values were not available.
Figure 1Dendrograms based on the DGGE profiles of the seawater microcosms using the Dice coefficient and the UPGMA clustering method. Microcosms were subjected to different treatments: (a) 22°C/0.1MPa; (b) 4°C/0.1MPa; (c) 4°C/22 MPa; and 4°C/22 MPaD. Samples are labeled as described in Table1
Figure 2Relative abundances of the most abundant bacterial phyla found in the seawater samples, as determined by high‐throughput sequencing. Samples are labeled as described in Table1
Figure 3Relative abundances of the most abundant Proteobacteria classes found in the seawater samples, as determined by high‐throughput sequencing. Samples are labeled as described in Table1
Figure 4Relative abundances of the most abundant bacterial genera found in the seawater samples, as determined by high‐throughput sequencing. Samples are labeled as described in Table1
Figure 5Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination diagram based on the OTU‐generated matrices obtained after sequencing using primers for 16S rRNA. Samples are labeled as described in Table 1 without the replicate number and the sampling time (after 40 days incubation)