| Literature DB >> 35342121 |
Hiromi Kambara1, Takahiro Shinno1, Norihisa Matsuura2, Shuji Matsushita3, Yoshiteru Aoi4, Tomonori Kindaichi5, Noriatsu Ozaki5, Akiyoshi Ohashi5.
Abstract
Methane-oxidizing bacteria (MOB) are ubiquitous and play an important role in the mitigation of global warming by reducing methane. MOB are commonly classified into Type I and Type II, belonging to Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria, respectively, and the diversity of MOB has been examined. However, limited information is currently available on favorable environments for the respective MOB. To investigate the environmental factors affecting the dominant type in the MOB community, we performed MOB enrichment using down-flow hanging sponge reactors under 38 different environmental conditions with a wide range of methane (0.01-80%) and ammonium concentrations (0.001-2,000 mg N L-1) and pH 4-7. Enrichment results revealed that pH was a crucial factor influencing the MOB type enriched. Type II was dominantly enriched at low pH (4-5), whereas Type I was dominant around neutral pH (6-7). However, there were some unusual cultivated biomass samples. Even though high methane oxidation activity was observed, very few or zero conventional MOB were detected using common FISH probes and primer sets for the 16S rRNA gene and pmoA gene amplification. Mycobacterium mostly dominated the microbial community in the biomass cultivated at very high NH4+ concentrations, strongly implying that it exhibits methane oxidation activity. Collectively, the present results revealed the presence of many unknown phylogenetic groups with the capacity for methane oxidation other than the reported MOB.Entities:
Keywords: Mycobacterium; diversity; environmental factors; methane-oxidizing bacteria; pH
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35342121 PMCID: PMC8958294 DOI: 10.1264/jsme2.ME21074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbes Environ ISSN: 1342-6311 Impact factor: 2.912
Operational conditions, maximum methane oxidation rates, and dominant MOB types identified by FISH
| Run No. | pH | CH4 (%) | NH4+
| O2 (%) | Cultivation period | CH4 oxidation rate | Dominant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 23 | 7.367 | Type I |
| 2 | 7 | 0.1 | 10 | 20 | 69 | 0.187 | Type I |
| 3 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 35 | 3.848 | Type I |
| 4 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 28 | 6.795 | Type II |
| 5 | 7 | 10 | 1.0 | 20 | 13 | 9.985 | Type I |
| 6 | 7 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 20 | 39 | 0.238 | Type I |
| 7 | 7 | 10 | 1.0 | 2 | 13 | 6.784 | Type I |
| 8 | 4 | 10 | 100 | 20 | 18 | 9.843 | Type II |
| 9 | 7 | 0.01 | 1.0 | 20 | 77 | 0.004 | ND1 |
| 10 | 7 | 0.01 | 1.0 | 20 | 77 | 0.001 | ND1 |
| 11 | 4 | 80 | 500 | 20 | 25 | 4.228 | Type II |
| 12 | 4 | 10 | 2000 | 20 | 98 | 4.117 | ND1 |
| 13 | 7 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 20 | 85 | 0.004 | ND1 |
| 14 | 7 | 0.1 | 0.001 | 20 | 83 | 0.219 | Type I |
| 15 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 33 | 8.500 | Type I+II |
| 16 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 17 | 8.008 | Type I |
| 17 | 4 | 0.1 | 100 | 20 | 57 | 0.363 | ND2 |
| 18 | 5 | 1.0 | 10 | 20 | 61 | 8.029 | Type II |
| 19 | 5 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 20 | 29 | 5.232 | Type II |
| 20 | 7 | 80 | 0.5 | 20 | 17 | 3.328 | Type I |
| 21 | 4 | 0.1 | 1000 | 20 | 83 | 0.252 | ND1 |
| 22 | 5 | 1.0 | 100 | 20 | 37 | 4.104 | Type II |
| 23 | 6 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 20 | 37 | 2.367 | Type I |
| 24 | 7 | 80 | 0.001 | 20 | 17 | 1.313 | Type I |
| 25 | 5 | 10 | 1.0 | 20 | 14 | 8.307 | Type II |
| 26 | 6 | 10 | 1.0 | 20 | 14 | 7.640 | Type I |
| 27 | 5 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 20 | 89 | 0.683 | ND1 |
| 28 | 6 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 20 | 89 | 0.566 | ND1 |
| 29 | 4 | 10 | 1.0 | 20 | 22 | 6.577 | Type II |
| 30 | 7 | 10 | 1.0 | 20 | 22 | 8.022 | Type I |
| 31 | 4 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 20 | 73 | 0.509 | Type II |
| 32 | 7 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 20 | 73 | 0.453 | Type I |
| 33 | 5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 20 | 44 | 2.626 | ND1 |
| 34 | 4 | 0.1 | 10 | 20 | 44 | 0.210 | Type II |
| 35 | 7 | 0.1 | 100 | 20 | 44 | 0.052 | ND2 |
| 36 | 7 | 0.1 | 1000 | 20 | 44 | 0.019 | ND1 |
| 37 | 7 | 10 | 100 | 20 | 19 | 5.263 | ND1 |
| 38 | 7 | 10 | 1000 | 20 | 19 | 3.326 | ND1 |
ND1: not determined because of weak fluorescence.
ND2: not determined because three fluorescence bands from the EUB mix, Type I, and Type II probes were simultaneously observed from the same cells.
Fig. 1.Schematic diagram of the closed DHS reactor and photographs of representative biomass samples cultivated on sponges in three runs.
Fig. 2.Time courses of methane oxidation rates in five representative runs. Values in parentheses indicate methane concentrations in the gas provided.
Fig. 3.Fluorescence images from the FISH analysis for the biomass from Run 1 with two different combinations of labels. (A) The first FISH using EUB mix probes labeled with Alexa 647 (blue), Mγ84 and Mγ705 probes labeled with Alexa 555 (red) to detect type I MOB, and the Mα450 probe labeled with Alexa 488 (green) to detect type II. (B) The second FISH using EUB mix probes labeled with Alexa 647 (blue), Mγ84 and Mγ705 probes labeled with Alexa 488 (green), and the Mα450 probe labeled with Alexa 555 (red). Scale bars represent 10 μm.
Fig. 4.Relationship between the dominant MOB type identified by FISH and pH, CH4 concentrations, and the mole ratio of NH4/dissolved CH4. The numeral beside the circle represents the run number.
Fig. 5.Effects of pH on the methane oxidation rate at (a) a methane concentration of 10% for biomass samples from Runs 29 and 30, and (b) a methane concentration of 0.1% for samples from Runs 31 and 32. pH in the parentheses indicates the original pH value during the enrichment.
Fig. 6.Effects of the mole ratio of NH4+/dissolved CH4 on the methane oxidation rate at 0.1% CH4 under different pH conditions for samples from Runs 29 to 32. pH in the parentheses indicates the original pH value during the enrichment.
Fig. 7.Relative abundance of MOB and Mycobacterium based on 16S rRNA genes.