| Literature DB >> 33425244 |
Xiuli Hao1,2,3, Jiaojiao Zhu1,2, Christopher Rensing4, Ying Liu1,2, Shenghan Gao1,2, Wenli Chen1, Qiaoyun Huang1,2,3, Yu-Rong Liu1,2,3.
Abstract
Heavy metal(loid)s exert selective pressure on microbial communities and evolution of metal resistance determinants. Despite increasing knowledge concerning the impact of metal pollution on microbial community and ecological function, it is still a challenge to identify a consistent pattern of microbial community composition along gradients of elevated metal(loid)s in natural environments. Further, our current knowledge of the microbial metal resistome at the community level has been lagging behind compared to the state-of-the-art genetic profiling of bacterial metal resistance mechanisms in a pure culture system. This review provides an overview of the core metal resistant microbiome, development of metal resistance strategies, and potential factors driving the diversity and distribution of metal resistance determinants in natural environments. The impacts of biotic factors regulating the bacterial metal resistome are highlighted. We finally discuss the advances in multiple technologies, research challenges, and future directions to better understand the interface of the environmental microbiome with the metal resistome. This review aims to highlight the diversity and wide distribution of heavy metal(loid)s and their corresponding resistance determinants, helping to better understand the resistance strategy at the community level.Entities:
Keywords: Arsenic; Biotic selection; Copper and silver; Distribution pattern; Heavy metal(loid) resistant microbiota; Mercury; Metal resistome; Zinc, lead and cadmium
Year: 2020 PMID: 33425244 PMCID: PMC7771044 DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.12.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Struct Biotechnol J ISSN: 2001-0370 Impact factor: 7.271
Fig. 1Summary of heavy metal(loid) resistance mechanisms. A. A timeline for highlighting the discovery of several important heavy metal(loid) resistance determinants. Related references are cited when elaborating resistance mechanism of each heavy metal(loid) below. B-E. Schematic diagram showing heavy metal(loid) resistance mechanisms in Gram-negative bacteria. All proteins are colored by operon. B. Mercury and arsenic resistance mechanism. The mer operon, which is regulated by MerR or MerD, confers bacterial mercury resistance [40], [48], [49], [50], [52]. Hg(II) enters the cell through transporters MerP, MerT and MerC [45], [46], [47], and is reduced by a mercuric reductase MerA [41], [42]. Methylation and demethylation of Hg(II) are mediated by HgcAB [53] and MerB [43], [198], respectively. As (III) combined with ArsR (repressor protein) triggers expression of the ars operon, which contributes to bacterial arsenic resistance [59], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [199], [200]. As(V) is reduced to As(III) by arsenate reductase ArsC/Acr2 [62]. As(III) is either pumped out directly via ArsB/Acr3/ArsK, or bound to the ArsD chaperone and delivered to the ArsAB ATP-dependent efflux pump. ArsM and ArsI are responsible for As(III) methylation and demethylation, respectively [69], [70]. Detoxification of MAs(III) includes oxidation of MAs(III) to less toxic MAs(V) by ArsH [71], or efflux via ArsP and ArsK [66], [67], [72]. ArsJ is responsible for organoarsenical efflux [68]. C. Copper and silver resistance mechanisms. The cut operon involves in copper uptake (CutA), delivery (CutC), intracellular storage (CutE), and efflux (CutF) [201], [202], [203]. Several mechanisms handle periplasmic copper detoxification, including the CusCFBA efflux system [83], [86], [87], [166], [204], [205], [206], a multicopper oxidase CueO, as well as two homologous CopABCDRS [73], [74], [75], [207], [208], [209], [210] and the plasmid-borne PcoABCDERS systems [77], [79], [80]. The P-type ATPase CopA is responsible for cytoplasmic Cu(I) efflux. The sil operon, which is regulated by a two-component regulator SilRS, mediates bacterial silver resistance [91]. D. Zinc, lead, cadmium and cobalt resistance mechanisms. Three types of transporters involves in Zn(II)/Cd(II)/Pb(II)/Co(II) efflux, including the RND transporter CzcCBA [92], [93], cation-translocating P-type ATPases ZntA, ZiaA and CadA [95], [96], [98], and CDF transporters ZitB or CzcD. SmtA and ZraP serve as metallothioneins involving in cytoplasmic and periplasmic Zn(II) binding, respectively [99], [211], [212]. The Znu system is a high-affinity Zn(II) uptake system. The pbr operon confers bacterial lead resistance [213], [214]. E. Nickel, cobalt, cadmium and chromium resistance mechanisms. The cnr operon and ncc operon export Ni(II)/Co(II)/Cd(II) out of the cell [94], [215]. A permease NreB and efflux protein RcnA mediate Ni(II) or Co(II) export [216], [217]. The nik operon is responsible for Ni(II) uptake [218], [219]. Cr detoxification includes Cr(VI) efflux via the ChrA transporter [103], [104], [105], and Cr(VI) reduction to less toxic Cr(III) through several reductases such as ChrR, YieF and NsfA [101], [102].
Fig. 2Profile of the core heavy metal(loid) resistant microbiome. A. Hierarchical cluster of samples retrieved from studies on heavy metal(loid) polluted environments. Cluster was analyzed based on the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity of relative abundance of amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) at the phylum level. Branches of the tree are colored according to habitat. Colors in the outer ring represent detailed information including both habitat and location. B. The mean relative abundance of top 10 phyla across samples from different environments. The remaining phyla are classified into “Others”. Community composition is clustered according to the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity of the mean relative abundance. Silva 138.1 was used for taxonomy classification. C. Boxplot showing a difference in richness among different groups (P < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test). D. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis based on the unweighted-UniFrac distance of ASV matrix showing changes in community structure in different groups (PERMANOVA, P < 0.05).
Fig. 3Habitat and taxonomic distribution of heavy metal(loid) resistant bacteria isolated from polluted environments. A total of 370 research articles, which are correlated to the isolation of heavy metal(loid) resistant bacteria from different environments, were collected from the Web of Science using keywords “(metal resistant bacteria) AND (isolation)”. Information on the isolation environment, taxonomic and number of isolates were retrieved. Most heavy metal(loid) resistant strains were isolated from soil, water, and sediments (82.33% of collected articles). The majority of isolates belong to Proteobacteria (66.07%). Others represent habitats including the root nodules, mosses, copper alloy coins, fly ash, slag, mine tailing and uranium ore.
Fig. 4Potential responses of microbial diversity, taxonomic composition, and function to heavy metal(loid) contamination. A. Shifts of microbial diversity along with heavy metal(loid) gradients. Microbial diversity could either decrease (upper), increase (middle), or remain constant (bottom) along with heavy metal(loid) gradients. B. Potential impacts of heavy metal(loid)s on community composition. Heavy metal(loid) exposure selects specific metal resistant taxa, leading to a decrease in diversity. Moderate-heavy metal(loid) loading or low concentration of essential metals benefit the growth of various taxa, which is accompanied by an increase in microbial diversity. Either unaffected microbial composition or turnover of dominant taxa under heavy metal(loid) exposure will lead to a constant microbial diversity. C. Relationship between microbial diversity/taxonomic community and function in heavy metal(loid) polluted environment. Increased microbial diversity may lead to increase, decrease, or constant in functional profiling (upper). Coupled and uncoupled patterns between microbial community and function could be due to horizontal gene transfer, functional redundancy, and changes in rare taxa.
Fig. 5Selection of microbial interactions in heavy metal(loid) resistant bacteria. A. Bacteria secret toxic methylarsenicals (MAs(III) and AST) to kill off their competitors without detoxification system. MAs(III): methylarsenite; AST: arsinothricin. B. Siderophore-mediated interspecies cooperation and competition. C. Heavy metal(loid)-mediate host innate immune defense against pathogens. D. Selection of protozoan predation for bacterial heavy metal(loid) resistance.
Fig. 6Schematic diagram of approaches accessing pollution level, microbial community structure, functional response, and resistance strategy in heavy metal(loid) polluted environments. AAS: Atomic absorption spectrometry; ICP-OES/MS: Inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy; PICT: Pollution-induced community tolerance; QMEC: Quantitative microbial element cycling; HT-qPCR: High-throughput-qPCR.
Primers published previously for quantification of heavy metal(loid) resistance genes by qPCR.
| Heavy metal(loid)s | Genes | Function | Sequence(5′-3′) | Sample type | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efflux | F: GGTGCTGATCATCGCCTG | Sediments from mining‐waste discharge canal and marine, intertidal samples, freshwater | |||
| R: GGGCGTCGTTGATACCGT | |||||
| Efflux | F: ATGCSACVGGYGTTGGCTGG | Marine sediments, sewage sludge, swine manure | |||
| R: CCRTTCAGYTCGGCRATRCC | |||||
| Redox | F: GCTGCAGATGGCCAGTATGTAAA | Swine manure | |||
| R: CCCTCGAGCGTAACCGGTCC | |||||
| Binding | F: ATAACTTCAAGCCGGGGACCCAG | Swine manure | |||
| R: AATGCACAGAGCGTCATTGT | |||||
| Efflux | F: CATCACGGTAGCTTTAAGGAGATTTTC | Swine manure | |||
| R: ATAGAGGACTCCGCCACCATTG | |||||
| Efflux | F: GGTCGGGTCTGGCATTGAAG | Swine manure | |||
| R: TTGCAGCATCGGCGCGCAGGGTA | |||||
| Efflux | F: CCTTCACGCCGACTTTCCAG | Rhizosphere | |||
| R: CGGATAGGTAATCAGCCAGCA | |||||
| Efflux | F: AACAAGCAGGTSCAGATCAAC | Rhizosphere | |||
| R: TGATCAGGCCGAAGTCSAGCG | |||||
| Efflux | F: GGSGCGMTSGAYTTCGGC | Sediment, seawater | |||
| R: GCCATYGGNYGGAACAT | |||||
| Efflux | F: AGCCGYCAGTATCCGGATCTGAC | Sediment, water, biofilm, soil | |||
| R: GTGGTCGCCGCCTGATAGGT | |||||
| Efflux | F: TCATCGCCGGTGCGATCATCAT | Sediment, water, biofilm, soil | |||
| R: TGTCATTCACGACATGAACC | |||||
| Efflux | F: TTYAGCCAGGTVACSGTSATYTT | Sediment, water, biofilm, soil | |||
| R: GCYGCRTCSGCRCGCACCAGRTA | |||||
| Uptake | F: AGCGCGCCCAGGAGCGCAGCGTCTT | Sediment, water, biofilm, soil | |||
| R: GGCTCGAAGCCGTCGAGRTA | |||||
| Redox | F: GGNRTYAAYRTCTGGTGYGC | Paddy Soils, forest soils, lakes, wastewater, compost | |||
| R: CGCATYTCCTTYTYBACNCC | |||||
| Redox | F: CCTGCGTCAACGTCGGCTG | Sediment, seawater | |||
| R: GCGATCAGGCAGCGGTCGAA | |||||
| C-Hg lyase | F: TCGCCCCATATATTTTAGAAC | Fecal, soil, sediment | |||
| R: GTCGGGACAGATGCA AAGAAA | |||||
| Uptake | F: CATCGGGCTGGGCTTCTTGAG | Fecal, soil, sediment | |||
| R: CATCGTTCCTTATTCGTGTGG | |||||
| Regulator | F CCAGGCGGCTACGGCTTGTT | Fecal, soil, sediment | |||
| R: GGTGGCCAACTGCACTTCCAG | |||||
| Regulator | F: GCCGGGGTCAATGTGGAGAC | Wastewater treatment plant | |||
| R: TAGTCACCCCGTGACTCCCCC | |||||
| Binding | F: CCGCYTGYCCGATCACWGTC | Sediment, seawater | |||
| R: CGGATAGCCSGCGTCYKCGG | |||||
| Uptake | F: RGTGGCGYTGTTYTTCGCCT | Sediment, seawater | |||
| R: CCAGCRCGGCCACGAYCCAG |
Advantages and limitations of methods for heavy metal(loid) resistome study.
| Method | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
Simple operation and low cost; Higher sensitivity and accuracy; Capacity for both absolute and relative quantification analysis. | PCR and primer biases; Primer design requires sequence information of target genes; Time-consuming and laborious when quantifying a large amount of samples/genes; Few heavy metal(loid) resistance gene degenerate primers are available. | |
High throughput; Higher sensitivity and accuracy; Time-, labor-saving when quantifying a large amount of samples/genes; Nanoliter scale reactions save consumables, reagents, and eDNA; Capacity for both absolute and relative quantification analysis. | PCR and primer biases; Primer design requires sequence information of target genes; All reactions are carried out under the same program, and the conditions of each PCR reaction cannot be optimized. Nanoliter scale reactions restrict the detection of low abundant genes. | |
Friendly for longer length of PCR fragments; Amplified fragments are kept on vectors, which are easy to recover. | Labor and time-consuming; Not suitable for a large amount of samples and genes analysis; Bias from PCR, clone library preparation, and clone selection. | |
High throughput; Fair specificity and sensitivity. | Probe design requires sequence information of target genes; Require frequent update of probes; Data processing and analysis are complex; Potential cross-hybridization affects the accuracy of quantification; Can only complete relative quantification analysis; Available probes target few types and numbers of heavy metal(loid) resistance genes. | |
High throughput; Lower cost; Can characterize the diversity and structure of heavy metal(loid) resistance genes. | PCR and primer biases; Lack of reliable specialized database for bacterial heavy metal(loid) resistome; Only provide a relative abundance of potential hosts for heavy metal(loid) resistance genes; Low resolution due to the short length of the amplicon. | |
High coverage; Link microbial taxa with function; Can survey microbial genetic diversity of unknown communities and discover novel genes; Metatranscriptomics can investigate active microbiome and heavy metal(loid) resistome. | Expensive; Higher requirements for DNA quality; Sequencing depth affects sequencing results; Complex data analysis process; It only provides a relative abundance of microbial taxa and functional genes. |