| Literature DB >> 35628675 |
Rosina Nkuna1, Grace N Ijoma1, Tonderayi S Matambo1.
Abstract
The hostile environment of mine tailings contains unique microbial life capable of bioleaching. The metagenomic analysis of such an environment provides an in-depth understanding of the microbial life and its potential, especially in biomining operations. However, DNA recovery from samples collected in those environments is challenging due to the presence of metal ions that interfere with the DNA analysis. A varied concentration of EDTA (4-13 µg/µL) to chelate the metal ions of enriched tailing samples prior to DNA extraction was performed. The results show that 9 µg/µL of EDTA was effective in most samples. However, the increasing concentration of EDTA negatively affected the DNA recovery. The sequencing of the successfully extracted DNA revealed a diverse range of fungal genera, some of which have not been previously reported in tailing or bioleaching applications. The dominant genera include Fodinomyces, Penicillium, Recurvomuces, Trichoderma, and Xenoacremonium; their traits were determined using the FungalTraits database. This study demonstrates the need to include a preliminary metal-chelating step using EDTA before DNA extractions for samples collected from metal-rich environments. It further showed the need for optimization but provided a benchmark range, particularly for tailings. However, we caution that a further EDTA removal step from the extracted DNA should be included to avoid its interferences in downstream applications.Entities:
Keywords: DNA extraction; bioleaching; ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA); fungi; mine tailing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35628675 PMCID: PMC9143545 DOI: 10.3390/jof8050419
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Media composition for enrichment and isolation of bioleaching microorganisms.
| Name | Composition | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Basic bioleaching media composition | 3.0 g/L (NH4)2SO4, 0.5 g/L MgSO4·7H2O, 0.5 g/L K2HPO4, 0.1 g/L KCl, 44.2 g/L FeSO4·7H2O or 30 g/L sulfur and 1.5% Agar bacteriological | ||
|
|
|
| |
| Glucose yeast extract medium (GYEM) | 5 g/L glucose, 0.05 g/L yeast extract | 3 | [ |
| Yeast sucrose media (YSM) | 100 g/L sucrose, 1.5 g/L NaNO3, 1.6 g/L yeast extract | 3 | [ |
pH measurements of the different tailings.
| Depths | Mixed Tailings | Tailing A | Tailing B | Tailing C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1: 0–15 cm | 3.27 ± 0.75 | 2.1 ± 0.017 | 3.0 ± 1.06 | 3.945 ± 0.02 |
| 2: 15–30 cm | 3.305 ± 0.46 | 1.8 ± 0.04 | 2.8 ± 1.12 | 3.7 ± 0.04 |
| 3: 30–45 cm | 3.25 ± 0.61 | 1.8 ± 0.005 | 2.8 ± 1.12 | 3.7 ± 0.01 |
Figure 1Heavy metal characterization of 4 different tailings at different depths. 1–3—sampling depth, T—tailing, A–C—different tailings, and M—mixed tailing.
Effectiveness of EDTA as chelating agent based on DNA purity, concentration, and successful amplification of ITS region.
| Sample ID | A260/A280 | Fluorometer (ng/mL) | Reads Count | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose Yeast Extract Media | ||||||||||
| S1 | S2 | S1 | S2 | S1 | S2 | |||||
| No EDTA | EDTA | No EDTA | EDTA | No EDTA | EDTA | No EDTA | EDTA | EDTA | EDTA | |
| TM1 | 2.0 | 1.95 | 1.83 | 2.50 | 1.25 | 78.5 | 1.50 | 14.4 | 43,557 | 25,392 |
| TM2 | 1.55 | 2.00 | 2.0 | 2.33 | 1.18 | 1.09 | 2.00 | 2.08 | 45,882 | 43,225 |
| TM3 | 1.40 | 2.00 | 1.50 | 2.66 | low | 0.59 | 2.50 | 14.5 | 10,319 | 76,036 |
| 1TA | 1.60 | 2.10 | 2.10 | 2.40 | 1.31 | 140 | 0.58 | 19.6 | 60,803 | 3868 |
| 2TA | 1.5 | 2.00 | 1.93 | 2.70 | 0.98 | 172 | 1.95 | 7.59 | 19,980 | 6725 |
| 3TA | 2.0 | 2.00 | 1.55 | 2.75 | 1.51 | 6.64 | 0.88 | 7.72 | 60,633 | 6365 |
| 1TB | 1.66 | 1.92 | 2.00 | 2.20 | 0.89 | 225 | 2.80 | 42.1 | 34,189 | 125,058 |
| 2TB | 1.50 | 1.9 | 1.01 | 2.20 | low | 37.8 | 0.94 | 7.61 | 51,553 | 44,624 |
| 3TB | 2.0 | 1.95 | 1.35 | 2.20 | 0.84 | 139 | 1.21 | 13.5 | 43,365 | 22,567 |
| 1TC | 1.71 | 2.14 | 1.88 | 2.25 | 1.29 | 8.88 | low | 2.09 | 37,915 | 45,172 |
| 2TC | 1.50 | 2.14 | 1.6 | 1.92 | 1.07 | 26.0 | 3.08 | 340 | 31,218 | 100,441 |
| 3TC | 1.80 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.50 | 5.48 | 58 | 0.86 | 5.54 | 7045 | 75,451 |
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| TM1 | 1.7 | 1.62 | 0.22 | 4.00 | 1.85 | 14.8 | low | 0.75 | 29,426 | 9131 |
| TM2 | 1.54 | 1.50 | 1.40 | 1.50 | 1.47 | 1.54 | low | 0.88 | 27,541 | 681 |
| TM3 | 1.62 | 1.88 | 1.35 | 1.50 | 0.98 | 5.74 | low | 1.32 | 38,058 | failed |
| 1TA | 1.70 | 1.7 | 0.18 | -- | low | 9.31 | low | 0.50 | 22,704 | 568 |
| 2TA | 0.18 | 1.85 | 1.80 | 2.50 | low | 7.79 | low | 2.60 | 23,805 | 33,873 |
| 3TA | 1.27 | 1.87 | 1.44 | 2.25 | low | 183 | low | 3.37 | 24,542 | 20,572 |
| 1TB | 0.90 | 1.78 | 1.35 | 1.36 | low | 64.4 | low | 2.06 | 34,033 | 1193 |
| 2TB | 1.44 | 1.62 | 1.55 | 1.58 | low | 10.1 | low | 3.78 | 6816 | 1433 |
| 3TB | 0.71 | 1.72 | 1.28 | 2.00 | low | 16.5 | low | 2.57 | 11,643 | 1261 |
| 1TC | 1.0 | 1.86 | 0.81 | 2.00 | low | 45.1 | low | 1.19 | 13,849 | 3809 |
| 2TC | 1.40 | 1.93 | 0.23 | -- | low | 9.34 | low | 2.81 | 20,693 | 1685 |
| 3TC | 0.75 | 1.75 | 1.27 | 1.75 | low | 1.30 | low | 1.21 | 27,148 | failed |
Note: 1–3 represents depths (1: 0–15 cm, 2: 15–30 cm, 3: 20–45 cm), respectively. TM—mixed tailing; TA—tailing A; TB—tailing B, and TC—tailing C.
Figure 2Alpha diversity indices of fungi: (a)—observed OTUs (richness index), (b)—Chao1 (total richness), (c)—Shannon index (richness and evenness) and (d)—Simpson index (number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species).
Figure 3Bray−Curtis measures of beta-diversity visualised using principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) for the comparison of fungal diversity for enrichment (S1 and S2) of tailing samples using GYEM and YSM.
Figure 4Relative abundance of fungi at phyla depth: (A)—glucose yeast extract media and (B)—yeast sucrose media.
Figure 5Relative abundance of fungi at genus depth: (A)—glucose yeast extract media and (B)—yeast sucrose media.
Ecological information and functional assignment of dominant fungal taxa using FungalTraits database.
| Genera | Primary Lifestyle | Secondary Lifestyle | Comment on Lifestyle | Endophytic Interaction Capability | Plant Pathogenic Capacity | Decay Substrate | Decay Type | Aquatic Habitat | Animal Biotrophic Capacity | Growth Form | Fruitbody Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| unspecified saprotroph | foliar endophyte | toxin-producing, animal parasite some species, mycoparasite some species | foliar endophyte | 0 | soil | mold | partly aquatic | opportunistic human parasite | filamentous mycelium | 0 |
|
| soil saprotroph | rock-inhabiting | 0 | 0 | 0 | soil | 0 | non-aquatic | 0 | filamentous mycelium | perithecium (hymenium hidden, narrow opening) |
|
| unspecified saprotroph | 0 | hypervariable, thermophile, some species animal parasite some species various saprotrophs | 0 | 0 | leaf/fruit/seed, soil, animal material | mold | partly aquatic | opportunistic human parasite | filamentous mycelium | 0 |
|
| wood saprotroph | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | wood | 0 | partly marine (partly non-aquatic) | opportunistic human parasite | filamentous mycelium | 0 |
|
| unspecified saprotroph | foliar endophyte | 0 | foliar endophyte | 0 | 0 | 0 | partly aquatic | opportunistic human parasite | yeast | none |
|
| soil saprotroph | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | soil | 0 | non-aquatic | 0 | filamentous mycelium | none |
|
| soil saprotroph | root-associated | 0 | root-associated | root-associated | roots, soil | 0 | partly aquatic | animal-associated/opportunistic human parasite | yeast | none |
|
| wood saprotroph | 0 | 0 | no endophytic capacity | 0 | wood | 0 | non-aquatic | 0 | filamentous mycelium | perithecium (hymenium hidden, narrow opening) |
|
| unspecified saprotroph | foliar endophyte | hypervariable | foliar endophyte | leaf/fruit/seed pathogen | leaf/fruit/seed, soil, dung, animal material | 0 | non-aquatic | animal parasite | filamentous mycelium | cleistothecium (closed, spherical) |
Fodinimyces, Trichoderma, Scoleobasidium, Paraphaesophaeria, Mollisia, Sardariomycetes, and Scytalidium were not detected on FungalTraits database.