| Literature DB >> 32518363 |
Rafaela Garrido Godoy1, Marta Angela Marcondes2, Rodrigo Pessôa1, Andrezza Nascimento1, Jefferson Russo Victor1,3, Alberto José da Silva Duarte1,4, Patricia Bianca Clissa5, Sabri Saeed Sanabani6.
Abstract
The Pinheiros River in São Paulo, Brazil, crosses through the capital city and has its confluence with the River Tiete, which comprises several reservoirs along its course. Although Pinheiros River is considered one of the heaviest polluted rivers in Brazil, little is known about its bacterial composition, their metabolic functions or how these communities are affected by the physicochemical parameters of the river. In this study, we used the 16S rRNA gene Illumina MiSeq sequencing to profile the bacterial community from the water surface at 11 points along the course of the River. Taxonomical composition revealed an abundance of Proteobacteria phyla, followed by Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, with a total of 233 classified bacterial families and 558 known bacterial genera. Among the 35 potentially pathogenic bacteria identified, Arcobacter was the most predominant genus. The disrupted physicochemical parameters detected in this study may possibly contribute to the composition and distribution of the bacterial community in the Pinheiros River. Predictive functional analysis suggests the River is abundant in motility genes, including bacterial chemotaxis and flagellar assembly. These results provide novel and detailed insights into the bacterial communities and putative function of the surface water in the Pinheiros River.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32518363 PMCID: PMC7283273 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66386-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Physio-chemical characteristics of water samples from the Pinheiros River.
| Sample ID | DO* mg/l | Temp. | pH | Sulfate mg/L | Orthophosphate mg/L | Phosphorus mg/L | Ammonia mg/L | Nitrate mg/L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 1.2 | 24.1 | 6.5 | 0.4 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.9 | 6.9 |
| P2 | 2.3 | 25 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.22 | 16.1 | 2.8 |
| P3 | 1.4 | 24.3 | 6.17 | 0.7 | 0.68 | 0.23 | 17.9 | 5.5 |
| P5 | 3.9 | 22.8 | 5.84 | 2.9 | 1.49 | 0.49 | 24.4 | 2.1 |
| P6 | 0.5 | 23.1 | 6.06 | 0.6 | 1.59 | 0.53 | 22.7 | 3.2 |
| P7 | 3 | 23.1 | 6.2 | 0.5 | 1.68 | 0.56 | 23.9 | 3.8 |
| P8 | 1.2 | 24.2 | 6.2 | 0.6 | 1.61 | 0.54 | 21.8 | 2.7 |
| P9 | 1.3 | 23.2 | 6.25 | 0.4 | 1.71 | 0.57 | 22.8 | 3.8 |
| P10 | 0.8 | 24.1 | 6.27 | 0.6 | 1.66 | 0.55 | 24.1 | 7.1 |
| P11 | 3.2 | 23 | 6.09 | 0.6 | 1.38 | 0.46 | 20.2 | 6.5 |
| P12 | 2.1 | 22.6 | 5.9 | 0.5 | 1.77 | 0.59 | 25.7 | 4.6 |
*Dissolved Oxygen.
The number of raw and valid reads sequenced for each sample, number of species and OTUs found, and subsequent alpha diversity measures.
| Sample ID | Raw reads | Valid reads | No. of reads identified at the species level | No. of species found | No. of OTUs found in the sample | Good’s coverage of library(%) | Alpha diversity indices | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 111,825 | 66,731 (66.7%) | 40,356 (60.5%) | 1,753 | 3747 | 99.1 | 4,142 | ##### | 4,373.00 | 5.713 | 0.026 | 5.803 | 3,663.00 |
| P2 | 113,528 | 68,110 (68.1%) | 41,004 (60.2%) | 1,693 | 3302 | 99 | ##### | ##### | 3,958.00 | 5.286 | 0.038 | 5.366 | 3,469.00 |
| P3 | 137,636 | 61,590 (61.6%) | 37,474 (60.8%) | 1,518 | 3461 | 99.1 | ##### | ##### | 4,044.00 | 5.669 | 0.024 | 5.76 | 3,102.00 |
| P5 | 361,826 | 64,056 (64.1%) | 50,269 (78.5%) | 1,730 | 2978 | 99 | 3,463 | ##### | 3,638.00 | 5.251 | 0.046 | 5.325 | 3,245.00 |
| P6 | 187,729 | 70,130 (70.1%) | 57,596 (82.1%) | 1,740 | 2924 | 99.2 | 3,333 | ##### | 3,502.00 | 5.229 | 0.048 | 5.298 | 3,253.00 |
| P7 | 364,534 | 65,799 (65.8%) | 52,920 (80.4%) | 1,591 | 2685 | 99.1 | ##### | ##### | 3,283.00 | 5.139 | 0.028 | 5.208 | 3,031.00 |
| P8 | 181,507 | 62,000 (62.0%) | 43,977 (70.9%) | 1,528 | 2983 | 99.1 | ##### | ##### | 3,517.00 | 5.495 | 0.023 | 5.573 | 2,995.00 |
| P9 | 226,645 | 69,846 (69.8%) | 58,839 (84.2%) | 1,687 | 2761 | 99.2 | ##### | ##### | 3,353.00 | 4.914 | 0.073 | 4.981 | 3,196.00 |
| P10 | 330,664 | 64,563 (64.6%) | 51,004 (79.0%) | 1,663 | 2940 | 99.1 | ##### | ##### | 3,551.00 | 5.185 | 0.046 | 5.262 | 3,145.00 |
| P11 | 339,109 | 62,112 (62.1%) | 48,849 (78.6%) | 1,552 | 2690 | 99.1 | 3,085 | ##### | 3,249.00 | 5.018 | 0.055 | 5.092 | 3,009.00 |
| P12 | 357,452 | 76,152 (76.2%) | 63,547 (83.4%) | 1,761 | 2928 | 99.2 | ##### | ##### | 3,559.00 | 5.041 | 0.064 | 5.105 | 3,211.00 |
Figure 1Phylum level taxonomical abundance ratio from each surface water sample in the Pinheiros River. Only bacterial phyla that had a relative abundance of 1% or greater are presented.
Figure 2Average composition of important human gut bacteria detected in the water surface of the Pinheiros River.
Figure 3Comparison of the averaged taxonomic compositions of the bacteriome in the Pinheiros River and Billing Reservoir. Only bacterial phyla that had a relative abundance of 1% or greater are presented.
Figure 4LEfSe analysis between the Pinheiros River and Billings Reservoir. Histogram of the LDA scores computed for most OTUs are differentially abundant across groups.