Advertisement

Microbial Ecology

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 808–818 | Cite as

Benthic ecology of Vibrio spp. and pathogenic Vibrio species in a coastal Mediterranean environment (La Spezia Gulf, Italy)

  • Luigi VezzulliEmail author
  • Elisabetta Pezzati
  • Mariapaola Moreno
  • Mauro Fabiano
  • Luigi Pane
  • Carla Pruzzo
  • The VibrioSea Consortium
Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

We carried out a 16-month in situ study to investigate the ecology of Vibrio spp. and pathogenic Vibrio species in coastal sediments of the Mediterranean Sea, employing multiple-regression analysis to reveal the major environmental factors controlling their occurrence in the benthic environment. In addition, association between vibrios and sediment-inhabiting meiofauna, which is a major component of benthic ecosystems, was investigated. Culturable and total Vibrio spp. estimates by most-probable-number technique coupled with standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time PCR methods, respectively, were at least one order of magnitude higher in sediment than in seawater. In addition, potential human pathogenic species Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus occurred in the sediment with V. parahaemolyticus being the most frequently found. In the pelagic environment, 60% of total variance in culturable Vibrio data was explained by sea surface temperature (40%), salinity (13%) and organic matter concentration (7%). In the benthic environment, sea surface temperature was the only factor that significantly affected culturable Vibrio occurrence although it explained only 25% of total variance, suggesting that additional unexplored factors may play a role as well. No correlation was found between culturable Vibrio spp. concentrations and the abundance of harpacticoid copepods in the sediment whilst a negative correlation was found between Vibrio spp. and nematode abundance which accounted for almost 90% of the total meiofaunal density. Taxonomic analysis revealed that selective bacterial feeders accounted for nearly 50% of the total nematode community and included genera such as Terschellingia, Molgolaimus and Halalaimus, suggesting that top-down control by nematode grazing may be an important factor affecting Vibrio occurrence in these sediments. It is concluded that the benthic marine environment may function as a reservoir of Vibrio spp. and potential pathogenic vibrios whose ecological features appeared substantially different from the ones recognised in the pelagic environment.

Keywords

Vibrio Meiofauna Nematode Community Harpacticoid Copepod Pelagic Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Barbara Repetto, Dr. Giovanni Giusto and Dr. Monica Stauder of the University of Genoa for precious help with microbiological analyses. We also thank Maurizio Costa (Osservatorio Ligure Pesca e Ambiente-OLPA) for collecting samples and environmental field data.

This study was carried out with the support of the “VibrioSea project”. “VibrioSea” is an ongoing international research project funded by the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and Institut Pasteur, France. The project is conducted by the VibrioSea consortium including the following institutions and leading researchers: CNES (Murielle Lafaye), MEDIAS (Jean Pierre Lacaux), CLS (Jacques Stump) and IFREMER (Dominique Hervio-Hearth) from France, University of Verona (Maria del Mar Lleò), University of Genova (Carla Pruzzo) and ISMAR-CNR Venezia (Giorgio Socal) from Italy and the Institut Pasteur from Paris (Marie Laure Quilici), Morocco (Nozha Cohen), Algeria (Fouzia Mouffok) and Tunisia (Ridha Ben Aissa).

References

  1. 1.
    Colwell RR (1996) Global climate and infectious disease: the cholera paradigm. Science 274:2025–2031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pruzzo C, Vezzulli L, Colwell RR (2008) Global impact of Vibrio cholerae interactions with chitin. Environ Microbiol 10:1400–1410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lipp EK, Huq A, Colwell RR (2002) Effects of global climate on infectious disease: the cholera model. Clin Microbiol Rev 15:757–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lobitz B, Beck L, Huq A, Wood B, Fuchs G, Faruque ASG, Colwell RR (2000) Climate and infectious disease: use of remote sensing for detection of Vibrio cholerae by indirect measurement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:1438–1443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koelle K, Pascual M, Yunus M (2006) Serotype cycles in cholera dynamics. Proc Biol Sci 273:2879–2886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Codeco CT, Lele S, Pascual M, Bouma M, Ko AI (2008) A stochastic model for ecological systems with strong nonlinear response to environmental drivers: application to two water-borne diseases. J R Soc Interface 5:247–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Depaola A, Capers GM, Alexander D (1994) Densities of Vibrio vulnificus in the intestines of fish from the US Gulf-Coast. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:984–988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pfeffer CS, Hite MF, Oliver JD (2003) Ecology of Vibrio vulnificus in estuarine waters of Eastern North Carolina. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:3526–3531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vezzulli L, Fabiano M (2006) Sediment biochemical and microbial variables for the evaluation of trophic status along the Italian and Albanian Continental Shelves. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 86:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luna GN, Dell'Anno A, Danovaro R (2006) DNA extraction procedure: a critical issue for bacterial diversity assessment in marine sediments. Environ Microbiol 8:308–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cochran WG (1950) Estimation of bacterial densities by means of the most probable number. Biometrics 6:105–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holm-Hansen O, Lorenzen CJ, Holmes RW, Strickland JDH (1965) Fluorometric determination of chlorophyll. ICES J Mar Sci 30:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartree EF (1972) Determination of proteins: a modification of the Lowry methods that give a linear photometric response. Anal Biochem 48:422–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heip C, Vincx M, Vranken G (1985) The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanogr Mar Biol A Rev 23:399–489Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Platt HM, Warwick RM (1983) A Synopsis of the Free-living Marine Nematodes. Part I. British Enoplids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 306 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Platt HM, Warwick RM (1988) A synopsis of the free-living marine nematodes (Part II. British chromadorids), vol 38. Brill and Backhuys, Leiden, p 502Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warwick RM, Platt HM, Somerfield PJ (1998) A synopses of the free living marine nematodes (Part III. Monhysterids), vol 53. Field Studies Council, Shropshire, p 296Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steyaert M, Deprez T, Raes M, Bezerra T, Demesel I, Derycke S, Desmet G, Fonseca G, Franco MA, Gheskiere T, Hoste E, Ingels J, Moens T, Vanaverbeke J, Van Gaever S, Vanhove S, Vanreusel A, Verschelde D, Vincx M (2005) Electronic key to the free-living marine nematodes. http://nemys.ugent.be/
  19. 19.
    Wieser W (1953) Die beziehung zwischen mundhohlengestalt, ernahrungsweise und vorkommen bei freilebenden marinen Nematoden. Eine okologisch-morphologische studie. Ark Zool 4:439–484Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderson MJ (2001) Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:626–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anderson MJ (2002) DISTLM v.2: a FORTRAN computer program to calculate a distance-based multivariate analysis for a linear model. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clarke K, Warwick RM (1994) Changes in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Natural Environment Research Council, Plymouth, p 144Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cangelosi GA, Freitag NE, Buckley MR (2004) From outside to inside: environmental microorganisms as human pathogens. American Academy of Microbiology, Washington, DC http://www.asm.org Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baffone W, Tarsi R, Pane L, Campana R, Repetto B, Mariottini GL, Pruzzo C (2006) Detection of free-living and plankton-bound vibrios in coastal waters of the Adriatic Sea (Italy) and study of their pathogenicity-associated properties. Environ Microbiol 8:1299–1305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blackwell KD, Oliver JD (2008) The ecology of Vibrio vulnificus, Vibrio cholerae, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in North Carolina estuaries. J Microbiol 46:146–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Decho AW (2000) Microbial biofilms in intertidal systems: an overview. Continent Shelf Res 20:1257–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huq A, Whitehouse CA, Grim CJ, Alam M, Colwell RR (2008) Biofilms in water, its role and impact in human disease transmission source. Curr Opin Biotech 19:244–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harriague AC, Di Brino M, Zampini M, Albertelli G, Pruzzo C, Misic C (2008) Vibrios in association with sedimentary crustaceans in three beaches of the northern Adriatic Sea (Italy). Mar Pollut Bull 56:574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pascal PY, Dupuy C, Richard P, Rzeznik-Orignac J, Niquil N (2008) Bacterivory of a mudflat nematode community under different environmental conditions. Mar Biol 154:671–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Traunspurger W, Bergtold M, Goedkoop W (1997) The effects of nematodes on bacterial activity and abundance in a freshwater sediment. Oecologia 112:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moreno M, Ferrero TJ, Gallizia I, Vezzulli L, Albertelli G, Fabiano M (2008) An assessment of the spatial heterogeneity of environmental disturbance within an enclosed harbour through the analysis of meiofauna and nematode assemblages. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 77:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thompson JR, Randa MA, Marcelino LA, Tomita-Mitchell A, Lim E, Polz MF (2004) Diversity and dynamics of a north Atlantic coastal Vibrio community. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:4103–4110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bej AK, Patterson DP, Brasher CW, Vickery MCL, Jones DD, Kaysner CA (1999) Detection of total and hemolysin-producing Vibrio parahaemolyticus in shellfish using multiplex PCR amplification of tl, tdh and trh. J Microbiol Methods 36:215–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim YB, Okuda J, Matsumoto C, Takahashi N, Hashimoto S, Nishibuchi M (1999) Identification of Vibrio parahaemolyticus strains at the species level by PCR targeted to the toxR gene. J Clin Microbiol 37:1173–1177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chun J, Huq A, Colwell RR (1999) Analysis of 16S–23S rRNA intergenic spacer regions of Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio mimicus. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:2202–2208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee JY, Eun JB, Choi HS (1997) Improving detection of Vibrio vulnificus in Octopus variabilis by PCR. J Food Sci 62:179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Vezzulli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elisabetta Pezzati
    • 2
  • Mariapaola Moreno
    • 3
  • Mauro Fabiano
    • 3
  • Luigi Pane
    • 1
  • Carla Pruzzo
    • 1
  • The VibrioSea Consortium
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Biology (DIBIO)University of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Pathology, Section of Microbiology School of MedicineUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  3. 3.Department for the Study of Territory and its Resources (DIPTERIS)University of GenoaGenoaItaly
  4. 4.Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES)ParisFrance
  5. 5.Institut PasteurParisFrance

Personalised recommendations