Impacts of environmental factors on microbial diversity, distribution patterns and syntrophic correlation in anaerobic processes

  • Qidong Yin
  • Zhongzhong Wang
  • Guangxue WuEmail author
Original Paper


Anaerobic processes are widely used for treating high-strength organic wastewater. Understanding the ecological patterns of the microorganisms involved and the effect of environmental factors on microbial community are important to manage the performance of anaerobic processes. Microbial communities of 12 anaerobic sludge samples acclimated under different environmental conditions were investigated. Genera detected from these anaerobic sludge samples generally presented three distribution patterns: frequently detected with high abundance, frequently detected with low abundance and occasionally detected with permanently low abundance. The type of feed stock was one of the most important process parameters affecting the shape of microbial community (e.g., Syntrophus, Methylomonas and Methylobacillus). Dye wastewater (Bacteroides) and the supplement of conductive materials (genus T78) were also found to shape the microbial community. Some syntrophic bacteria and methanogens were rare in many anaerobic samples. However, correlation analysis suggested that rare genera are potential syntrophic partners and are responsible for syntrophic methanogenesis.


Anaerobic sludge Microbial community Microbial correlation analysis Syntrophy Methanogenesis Environmental factors 



This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51878371) and the Science and Technology Innovation Committee of Shenzhen Municipality (JCYJ20170817161106801). The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their careful reviews and useful suggestions.

Supplementary material

203_2019_1627_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 KB)


  1. Albuquerque MG, Carvalho G, Kragelund C et al (2013) Link between microbial composition and carbon substrate-uptake preferences in a PHA-storing community. ISME J 7:1–12Google Scholar
  2. Bell G (2000) The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. Am Nat 155:606–617Google Scholar
  3. Cervantes FJ, Dos Santos AB (2011) Reduction of azo dyes by anaerobic bacteria: microbiological and biochemical aspects. Rev Environ Sci Biol 10:125–137Google Scholar
  4. Chen S, Cheng H, Wyckoff KN et al (2016) Linkages of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes populations to methanogenic process performance. Rev Environ Sci Biol 43:771–781Google Scholar
  5. de Bok FA, Harmsen HJ, Plugge CM et al (2005) The first true obligately syntrophic propionate-oxidizing bacterium, Pelotomaculum schinkii sp. nov., co-cultured with Methanospirillum hungatei, and emended description of the genus Pelotomaculum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 55:1697–1703Google Scholar
  6. Dridi B, Fardeau ML, Ollivier B et al (2012) Methanomassiliicoccus luminyensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a methanogenic archaeon isolated from human faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 62:1902–1907Google Scholar
  7. Fernández-Gomez B, Richter M, Schuler M et al (2013) Ecology of marine Bacteroidetes: a comparative genomics approach. ISME J 7:1026–1037Google Scholar
  8. Galand PE, Casamayor EO, Kirchman DL (2009) Ecology of the rare microbial biosphere of the Arctic Ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:22427–22432Google Scholar
  9. Hoefman S, van der Ha D, Boon N et al (2014) Customized media based on miniaturized screening improve growth rate and cell yield of methane-oxidizing bacteria of the genus Methylomonas. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 105:353–366Google Scholar
  10. Hoehler TM, Alperin MJ, Albert DB et al (2001) Apparent minimum free energy requirements for methanogenic Archaea and sulfate-reducing bacteria in an anoxic marine sediment. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 38:33–41Google Scholar
  11. Jetten MS, Stams AJ, Zehnder AJ (1992) Methanogenesis from acetate: a comparison of the acetate metabolism in Methanothrix soehngenii and Methanosarcina spp. FEMS Microbiol Lett 88:181–197Google Scholar
  12. Kampmann K, Ratering S, Kramer I et al (2012) Unexpected stability of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes communities in laboratory biogas reactors fed with different defined substrates. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:2106–2119Google Scholar
  13. Kim TS, Jeong JY, Wells GF (2013) General and rare bacterial taxa demonstrating different temporal dynamic patterns in an activated sludge bioreactor. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:1755–1765Google Scholar
  14. Kindaichi T, Nierychlo M, Kragelund C et al (2013) High and stable substrate specificities of microorganisms in enhanced biological phosphorus removal plants. Environ Microbiol 15:1821–1831Google Scholar
  15. Kushkevych I, Kováč J, Vítězová M et al (2018) The diversity of sulfate-reducing bacteria in the seven bioreactors. Arch Microbiol 200:1–6Google Scholar
  16. Lovley DR (2011) Reach out and touch someone: potential impact of DIET (direct interspecies energy transfer) on anaerobic biogeochemistry, bioremediation, and bioenergy. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 10:101–105Google Scholar
  17. McInerney MJ, Struchtemeyer CG, Sieber JR (2008) Physiology, ecology, phylogeny, and genomics of microorganisms capable of syntrophic metabolism. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1125:58–72Google Scholar
  18. McInerney MJ, Sieber JR, Gunsalus RP (2009) Syntrophy in anaerobic global carbon cycles. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:623–632Google Scholar
  19. Meerburg FA, Vlaeminck SE, Roume H (2016) High-rate activated sludge communities have a distinctly different structure compared to low-rate sludge communities, and are less sensitive towards environmental and operational variables. Water Res 100:137–145Google Scholar
  20. Muller N, Schleheck D, Schink B (2009) Involvement of NADH:acceptor oxidoreductase and butyryl coenzyme A dehydrogenase in reversed electron transport during syntrophic butyrate oxidation by Syntrophomonas wolfei. J Bacteriol 191:6167–6177Google Scholar
  21. Naumann E, Hippe H, Gottschalk G (1983) Betaine: new oxidant in the Stickland reaction and methanogenesis from betaine and l-alanine by a Clostridium sporogenes-Methanosarcina barkeri coculture. Appl Enivron Microbiol 45:474–483Google Scholar
  22. Park Y, Cho H, Yu J et al (2017) Response of microbial community structure to pre-acclimation strategies in microbial fuel cells for domestic wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol 233:176–183Google Scholar
  23. Pedrós-Alió C (2006) Marine microbial diversity: can it be determined? Trends Microbiol 14:257–263Google Scholar
  24. Ranawat P, Rawat S (2017) Stress response physiology of thermophiles. Arch Microbiol 199:391–414Google Scholar
  25. Rotaru AE, Shrestha PM, Liu F et al (2014) A new model for electron flow during anaerobic digestion: direct interspecies electron transfer to Methanosaeta for the reduction of carbon dioxide to methane. Energ Environ Sci 7:408–415Google Scholar
  26. Rui J, Li J, Zhang S et al (2015) The core populations and co-occurrence patterns of prokaryotic communities in household biogas digesters. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:158Google Scholar
  27. Saunders AM, Albertsen M, Vollertsen J et al (2016) The activated sludge ecosystem contains a core community of abundant organisms. ISME J 10:11–20Google Scholar
  28. Schnürer A, Schink B, Svensson BH (1996) Clostridium ultunense sp. nov., a mesophilic bacterium oxidizing acetate in syntrophic association with a hydrogenotrophic methanogenic bacterium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 46:1145–1152Google Scholar
  29. van der Gast CJ, Whiteley AS, Thompson IP (2004) Temporal dynamics and degradation activity of an bacterial inoculum for treating waste metal-working fluid. Environ Microbiol 6:254–263Google Scholar
  30. van der Gast CJ, Ager D, Lilley AK (2008) Temporal scaling of bacterial taxa is influenced by both stochastic and deterministic ecological factors. Environ Microbiol 10:1411–1418Google Scholar
  31. Wallrabenstein C, Schink B (1994) Evidence of reversed electron transport in syntrophic butyrate or benzoate oxidation by Syntrophomonas wolfei and Syntrophus buswellii. Arch Microbiol 162:136–142Google Scholar
  32. Wang Z, Yin Q, Gu M et al (2018) Enhanced azo dye Reactive Red 2 degradation in anaerobic reactors by dosing conductive material of ferroferric oxide. J Hazard Mater 357:226–234Google Scholar
  33. Weisse T (2014) Ciliates and the rare biosphere-community ecology and population dynamics. J Eukaryot Microbiol 61:419–433Google Scholar
  34. Welte C, Deppenmeier U (2014) Bioenergetics and anaerobic respiratory chains of aceticlastic methanogens. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg 1837:1130–1147Google Scholar
  35. Winter C, Bouvier T, Weinbauer MG (2010) Trade-offs between competition and defense specialists among unicellular planktonic organisms: the “killing the winner” hypothesis revisited. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 74:42–57Google Scholar
  36. Xing L, Yang S, Yin Q et al (2017) Effects of carbon source on methanogenic activities and pathways incorporating metagenomic analysis of microbial community. Bioresour Technol 224:982–988Google Scholar
  37. Yachi S, Loreau M (1999) Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:1463–1468Google Scholar
  38. Yin Q, He K, Liu A et al (2017a) Enhanced system performance by dosing ferroferric oxide during the anaerobic treatment of tryptone-based high-strength wastewater. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101:3929–3939Google Scholar
  39. Yin Q, Miao J, Li B et al (2017b) Enhancing electron transfer by ferroferric oxide during the anaerobic treatment of synthetic wastewater with mixed organic carbon. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 119:104–110Google Scholar
  40. Yin Q, Yang S, Wang Z et al (2018) Clarifying electron transfer and metagenomic analysis of microbial community in the methane production process with the addition of ferroferric oxide. Chem Eng J 333:216–225Google Scholar
  41. Yordy JR, Weaver TL (1977) Methylobacillus: a new genus of obligately methylotrophic bacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 27:247–255Google Scholar
  42. Yu K, Zhang T (2012) Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analysis of microbial community structure and gene expression of activated sludge. PLoS One 7:e38183Google Scholar
  43. Zeikus JG, Wolee RS (1972) Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicus sp. n., an anaerobic, autotrophic, extreme thermophile. J Bacteriol 109:707–713Google Scholar
  44. Zhang K, Song L, Dong X (2010) Proteiniclasticum ruminis gen. nov., sp. nov., a strictly anaerobic proteolytic bacterium isolated from yak rumen. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 60:2221–2225Google Scholar
  45. Zhang T, Shao MF, Ye L (2012) 454 pyrosequencing reveals bacterial diversity of activated sludge from 14 sewage treatment plants. ISME J 6:1137–1147Google Scholar
  46. Zhang W, Werner JJ, Agler MT et al (2014) Substrate type drives variation in reactor microbiomes of anaerobic digesters. Bioresour Technol 151:397–401Google Scholar
  47. Zhu X, Kougias PG, Treu L et al (2017) Microbial community changes in methanogenic granules during the transition from mesophilic to thermophilic conditions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101:1313–1322Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shenzhen Environmental Science and New Energy Technology Engineering LaboratoryTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen InstituteShenzhenChina
  2. 2.Guangdong Province Engineering Research Center for Urban Water Recycling and Environmental Safety, Graduate School at ShenzhenTsinghua UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations