| Literature DB >> 34020712 |
Denise P Silva1, Helena D M Villela1, Henrique F Santos2, Gustavo A S Duarte1, José Roberto Ribeiro1, Angela M Ghizelini1, Caren L S Vilela1, Phillipe M Rosado1, Carolline S Fazolato1, Erika P Santoro1, Flavia L Carmo1, Dalton S Ximenes3, Adriana U Soriano4, Caio T C C Rachid5, Rebecca L Vega Thurber6, Raquel S Peixoto7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beginning in the last century, coral reefs have suffered the consequences of anthropogenic activities, including oil contamination. Chemical remediation methods, such as dispersants, can cause substantial harm to corals and reduce their resilience to stressors. To evaluate the impacts of oil contamination and find potential alternative solutions to chemical dispersants, we conducted a mesocosm experiment with the fire coral Millepora alcicornis, which is sensitive to environmental changes. We exposed M. alcicornis to a realistic oil-spill scenario in which we applied an innovative multi-domain bioremediator consortium (bacteria, filamentous fungi, and yeast) and a chemical dispersant (Corexit® 9500, one of the most widely used dispersants), to assess the effects on host health and host-associated microbial communities.Entities:
Keywords: Chemical dispersant; Coral reefs; Coral-associated microbiome; Corexit 9500; Millepora alcicornis; Oil bioremediation; Probiotics; Restoration
Year: 2021 PMID: 34020712 PMCID: PMC8138999 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-021-01041-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Fig. 1a Steps for pBMC-BC selection and timeline of the experiment. b Procorais mesocosm structure [38]. c Timeline of the experiment showing the collection sample times (T0, T1, and T2)
Fig. 2a Morphological changes assessed by photodocumentation in Millepora alcicornis fragments exposed to the treatments at T0, T1, and T2. b Photosynthetic efficiency measured by F/F on five different days of the experiment, including T0, T1, and T2
Repeated measure ANOVA results and post-hoc means of the physicochemical conditions to all treatments throughout time
| Parameters | Post-Hoc (Mean ± SE) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Time | 2.03 | 0.14 | |
| Time:Treatments | 0.58 | 0.86 | ||
| Post-hoc comparison | Corexit 9500 ( 8.05 ± 0.04) | |||
| oWSF + Corexit 9500 (7.99 ± 0.04) | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 (8.06 ± 0.04) | ||||
| oWSF (8.34 ± 0.04) | ||||
| pBMC-BC (8.54 ± 0.04) | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC (8.61 ± 0.04) | ||||
| Control (8.47 ± 0.04) | ||||
| DOC | ||||
| Treatments | 1.51 | 0.21 | ||
| Time:Treatments | 1.22 | 0.29 | ||
| Post-hoc comparison | T0 (3.24 μg/mL ± 0.26) | |||
| T1 (4.44 mg/mL ± 0.26) | ||||
| T2 (4.53 μg/mL ± 0.26) | ||||
| Salinity | ||||
| Time:Treatments | 1.6 | 0.11 | ||
| Post-hoc comparison | T0 (36.22 mg/L ± 0.07) | |||
| T1 (36.17 mg/L ± 0.07) | ||||
| T2 (37.25 mg/L ± 0.07) | ||||
| Control (36.70 mg/L ± 0.12) | ||||
| oWSF (36.42 mg/L ± 0.12) | ||||
| pBMC-BC (36.74 mg/L ± 0.12) | ||||
| Corexit 9500 (36.60 mg/L ± 0.12) | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC (36.20 mg/L ± 0.14) | ||||
| oWSF + Corexit 9500 (36.38 mg/L ± 0.12) | ||||
| pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 (36.85 mg/L ± 0.12) | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 (36.47 mg/L ± 0.12) | ||||
| Ammonium | ||||
| Treatments | 1.33 | 0.28 | ||
| Time:Treatments | 1.07 | 0.41 | ||
| Post-hoc comparison | T0 (28.10 μg/L ± 19.22) | |||
| T1 (160.09 μg/L ± 19.22) | ||||
| T2 (99.83 μg/L ± 19.22) | ||||
| Nitrate | ||||
| Treatments | 0.35 | 0.92 | ||
| Time:Treatments | 0.72 | 0.74 | ||
| Post-hoc comparison | T0 (6.56 μg/L ± 10.76) | |||
| T1 (58.11 μg/L ± 10.76) | ||||
| T2 (34.65 μg/L ± 10.76) | ||||
| Phosphate | ||||
| Post-hoc comparison | Control in | |||
| oWSF in | ||||
| pBMC-BC in | ||||
| Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC in | ||||
| oWSF + Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| PAH | ||||
| Post-hoc comparison | Control in | |||
| oWSF in | ||||
| pBMC-BC in | ||||
| Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC in | ||||
| oWSF + Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| N-alkanes | ||||
| Post-hoc comparison | Control in | |||
| oWSF in | ||||
| pBMC-BC in | ||||
| Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC in | ||||
| oWSF + Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 in | ||||
| oWSF + pBMC-BC + Corexit 9500 in |
Fig. 3Quantification of PAH and n-alkanes in samples where they were detectable, at T0, T1, and T2. In all treatments not shown (including the control treatment), PAH and n-alkanes were undetectable
Fig. 4Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of the Millepora alcicornis bacterial community composition in the different treatments over time, using the Bray-Curtis similarity coefficient based on OTU distribution. The angles and lengths of radiating blue lines indicate the direction and strength of the relationships between the abiotic variables and the ordination scores
Fig. 5Taxonomic comparison of the bacterial genera based on the DNA sequences obtained from the partial sequence of the 16S subunit of ribosomal RNA in all treatments over time. Note: the pBMC-BC + Corexit9500 sample in T1 is missing, due to the low-quality sequences
Fig. 6Bubble graph of relative abundances of indicator OTUs in each treatment. The percentage of relative abundance is shown below the graph for all indicator OTUs. Bubbles shown for statistically significant OTUs (p < 0.05) and with indicator value > 60