| Literature DB >> 30814991 |
Susanne Wörner1,2, Michael Pester1,2,3.
Abstract
Active sulfate-reducing microorganisms (SRM) in freshwater sediments are under-examined, despite the well-documented cryptic sulfur cycle occurring in these low-sulfate habitats. In Lake Constance sediment, sulfate reduction rates of up to 1,800 nmol cm-3 day-1 were previously measured. To characterize its SRM community, we used a tripartite amplicon sequencing approach based on 16S rRNA genes, 16S rRNA, and dsrB transcripts (encoding the beta subunit of dissimilatory sulfite reductase). We followed the respective amplicon dynamics in four anoxic microcosm setups supplemented either with (i) chitin and sulfate, (ii) sulfate only, (iii) chitin only, or (iv) no amendment. Chitin was used as a general substrate for the whole carbon degradation chain. Sulfate turnover in sulfate-supplemented microcosms ranged from 38 to 955 nmol day-1 (g sediment f. wt.)-1 and was paralleled by a decrease of 90-100% in methanogenesis as compared to the respective methanogenic controls. In the initial sediment, relative abundances of recognized SRM lineages accounted for 3.1 and 4.4% of all bacterial 16S rRNA gene and 16S rRNA sequences, respectively. When normalized against the 1.4 × 108 total prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene copies as determined by qPCR and taking multiple rrn operons per genome into account, this resulted in approximately 105-106 SRM cells (g sediment f. wt.)-1. The three amplicon approaches jointly identified Desulfobacteraceae and Syntrophobacteraceae as the numerically dominant and transcriptionally most active SRM in the initial sediment. This was corroborated in the time course analyses of sulfate-consuming sediment microcosms irrespective of chitin amendment. Uncultured dsrAB family-level lineages constituted in sum only 1.9% of all dsrB transcripts, with uncultured lineage 5 and 6 being transcriptionally most active. Our study is the first holistic molecular approach to quantify and characterize active SRM including uncultured dsrAB lineages not only in Lake Constance but for lake sediments in general.Entities:
Keywords: chitin; dsrB transcripts; lake sediment; next-generation amplicon sequencing; sulfate reduction
Year: 2019 PMID: 30814991 PMCID: PMC6381063 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00247
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
FIGURE 1Time course of sulfate turnover and formation of metabolic end products in incubated sediment microcosms. The gap illustrates the shift from pre-incubation to the chitin and/or first sulfate amendment. Sulfate was always measured twice: before and after supplementation. Opening of microcosms under anoxic conditions for sediment sampling is indicated by black arrows. The mean and one standard deviation are shown, n = 3. Some error bars are smaller than the symbol size.
FIGURE 2Time-resolved beta-diversity of bacterial communities in the various microcosm setups according to a principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on the weighted unifrac metric. Segregation of the bacterial community over time is shown for the 16S rRNA gene and 16S rRNA amplicon survey separately. Connected points of the same color represent biological replicates (n = 3).
FIGURE 3Community composition of recognized SRM families in the initial sediment and over time in the various microcosm setups. For Syntrophaceae, only members of the genera Desulfobacca and Desulfomonile were considered. Bars represent the mean relative abundance for each treatment and time point (n = 3).
Overview of the dsrB-transcribing community in initial littoral sediment of Lake Constance.
| Reductive bacterial type | Family | Relative abundance (%) | Number of OTUs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23.44 ± 1.03 | 39 | ||
| 22.36 ± 0.56 | 40 | ||
| 12.46 ± 0.79 | 49 | ||
| 8.99 ± 0.96 | 28 | ||
| 2.4 ± 0.18 | 3 | ||
| 1.49 ± 0.06 | 13 | ||
| LA- | 0.39 ± 0.05 | 10 | |
| 0.24 ± 0.03 | 4 | ||
| Uncultured family-level lineage 11 | 0.22 ± 0.05 | 4 | |
| 0.03 ± 0.01 | 2 | ||
| 0.02 ± 0.02 | 1 | ||
| Unclassified | 21.92 ± 0.78 | 138 | |
| Environmental supercluster / | Uncultured family-level lineage 8 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 2 |
| Uncultured family-level lineage 9 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 2 | |
| Uncultured family-level lineage 6 | 1.36 ± 0.1 | 8 | |
| Uncultured family-level lineage 5 | 0.24 ± 0.04 | 15 | |
| Unclassified | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 3 | |
| Unclassified | Unclassified | 4.3 ± 0.43 | 72 |
FIGURE 4Relative abundance of dsrB transcripts affiliated to dsrAB family-level lineages according to Müller et al. (2015). Bars represent the mean relative abundance of each lineage for the respective treatment and time point (n = 3).