Advertisement

Microbial Ecology

, Volume 67, Issue 4, pp 829–836 | Cite as

Detecting the Nonviable and Heat-Tolerant Bacteria in Activated Sludge by Minimizing DNA from Dead Cells

  • Feng Guo
  • Tong ZhangEmail author
Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Propidium monoazide (PMA) has been used to determine viable microorganisms for clinical and environmental samples since selected naked DNA which was covalently cross-linked by this dye could not be PCR-amplified. In this study, we applied PMA to the activated sludge samples composed of complex bacterial populations to investigate the viability of human fecal bacteria and to determine the heat-tolerant bacteria by high-throughput sequencing of 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) V3 region. The methodological evaluation suggested the validity, and about 2–3 magnitude signals decreasing from the stained DNA were observed. However, the nest PCR, which was previously conducted to further minimize signals from dead cells, seemed not suitable perhaps due to the limitation of the primers. On one hand, for typical human fecal bacteria, less than half of them were viable, and most genera exhibited the similar viable percentages. It was interesting that many “unclassified bacteria” showed low viability, implying their sensitivity to environmental change. On the other hand, after heating at 60 °C for 4 h, the bacteria with high survival rate in activated sludge samples included those reported thermophiles or heat-tolerant lineages, such as Anoxybacillus and diverse species in Actinobacteria, and some novel ones, such as Gp16 subdivision in Acidobacteria. In summary, our results took a glance at the fate of fecal bacteria during sewage treatment and established an example for identifying tolerant species to lethal shocks in a complex community.

Keywords

Activate Sludge Actinobacteria Aeration Tank Fecal Bacterium Activate Sludge Sample 
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

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the financial support from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (project no. HKU7190/12E). Dr. Feng Guo wants to thank the postdoctoral fellowship from the University of Hong Kong.

Supplementary material

248_2014_389_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.9 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1904 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Liu W-T, Marsh TL, Cheng H, Forney LJ (1997) Characterization of microbial diversity by determining terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms of genes encoding 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 63(11):4516–4522PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muyzer G, De Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 59(3):695–700PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quince C, Lanzén A, Curtis TP, Davenport RJ, Hall N, Head IM, Read LF, Sloan WT (2009) Accurate determination of microbial diversity from 454 pyrosequencing data. Nat Methods 6(9):639–641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen KM, Johnsen PJ, Bensasson D, Daffonchio D (2007) Release and persistence of extracellular DNA in the environment. Environ Biosaf Res 6(1–2):37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pietramellara G, Ascher J, Borgogni F, Ceccherini M, Guerri G, Nannipieri P (2009) Extracellular DNA in soil and sediment: fate and ecological relevance. Biol Fertil Soils 45(3):219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nocker A, Cheung CY, Camper AK (2006) Comparison of propidium monoazide with ethidium monoazide for differentiation of live vs. dead bacteria by selective removal of DNA from dead cells. J Microbiol Methods 67(2):310–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parks DH, Beiko RG (2010) Identifying biologically relevant differences between metagenomic communities. Bioinformatics 26(6):715–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rawsthorne H, Dock C, Jaykus L (2009) PCR-based method using propidium monoazide to distinguish viable from nonviable Bacillus subtilis spores. Appl Environ Microbiol 75(9):2936–2939PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodrigues L, Ramos J, Couto I, Amaral L, Viveiros M (2011) Ethidium bromide transport across Mycobacterium smegmatis cell-wall: correlation with antibiotic resistance. BMC Microbiol 11:35PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fittipaldi M, Nocker A, Codony F (2012) Progress in understanding preferential detection of live cells using viability dyes in combination with DNA amplification. J Microbiol Methods 91(2):276–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rudi K, Moen B, Drømtorp SM, Holck AL (2005) Use of ethidium monoazide and PCR in combination for quantification of viable and dead cells in complex samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(2):1018–1024PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nocker A, Mazza A, Masson L, Camper AK, Brousseau R (2009) Selective detection of live bacteria combining propidium monoazide sample treatment with microarray technology. J Microbiol Methods 76(3):253–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nocker A, Sossa-Fernandez P, Burr MD, Camper AK (2007) Use of propidium monoazide for live/dead distinction in microbial ecology. Appl Environ Microbiol 73(16):5111–5117PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nocker A, Richter-Heitmann T, Montijn R, Schuren F, Kort R (2010) Discrimination between live and dead cells in bacterial communities from environmental water samples analyzed by 454 pyrosequencing. Int Microbiol Off J Span Soc Microbiol 13(2):59–65Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luo JF, Lin WT, Guo Y (2010) Method to detect only viable cells in microbial ecology. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86(1):377–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seviour RJ, Nielsen PH (2010) Microbial communities in activated sludge plants. In: Seviour RJ, Nielsen PH (eds) Microbial ecology of activated sludge. IWA, London, pp 95–126Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang T, Shao MF, Ye L (2012) 454 pyrosequencing reveals bacterial diversity of activated sludge from 14 sewage treatment plants. ISME J 6(6):1137–1147PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wéry N, Monteil C, Pourcher A-M, Godon J-J (2010) Human-specific fecal bacteria in wastewater treatment plant effluents. Water Res 44(6):1873–1883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daims H, Taylor MW, Wagner M (2006) Wastewater treatment: a model system for microbial ecology. Trends Biotechnol 24(11):483–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guo F, Zhang T (2013) Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97(10):4607–4616PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hamady M, Walker JJ, Harris JK, Gold NJ, Knight R (2008) Error-correcting barcoded primers for pyrosequencing hundreds of samples in multiplex. Nat Methods 5(3):235–237PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, Sahl JW, Stres B, Thallinger GG, Van Horn DJ, Weber CF (2009) Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 75(23):7537–7541PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haas BJ, Gevers D, Earl AM, Feldgarden M, Ward DV, Giannoukos G, Ciulla D, Tabbaa D, Highlander SK, Sodergren E (2011) Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Res 21(3):494–504PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huse SM, Welch DM, Morrison HG, Sogin ML (2010) Ironing out the wrinkles in the rare biosphere through improved OTU clustering. Environ Microbiol 12(7):1889–1898PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schloissnig S, Arumugam M, Sunagawa S, Mitreva M, Tap J, Zhu A, Waller A, Mende DR, Kultima JR, Martin J, Kota K, Sunyaev SR, Weinstock GM, Bork P (2013) Genomic variation landscape of the human gut microbiome. Nature 493(7430):45–50PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR (2007) Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol 73(16):5261–5267PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frank JA, Reich CI, Sharma S, Weisbaum JS, Wilson BA, Olsen GJ (2008) Critical evaluation of two primers commonly used for amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:2461–2470PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bae S, Wuertz S (2009) Rapid decay of host-specific fecal Bacteroidales cells in seawater as measured by quantitative PCR with propidium monoazide. Water Res 43(19):4850–4859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Varma M, Field R, Stinson M, Rukovets B, Wymer L, Haugland R (2009) Quantitative real-time PCR analysis of total and propidium monoazide-resistant fecal indicator bacteria in wastewater. Water Res 43(19):4790–4801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harrison JJ, Ceri H, Turner RJ (2007) Multimetal resistance and tolerance in microbial biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 5(12):928–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saw JH, Mountain BW, Feng L, Omelchenko MV, Hou S, Saito JA, Stott MB, Li D, Zhao G, Wu J, Galperin MY, Koonin EV, Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Rigden DJ, Dunfield PF, Wang L, Alam M (2008) Encapsulated in silica: genome, proteome and physiology of the thermophilic bacterium Anoxybacillus flavithermus WK1. Genome Biol 9(11):R161PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goh KM, Kahar UM, Chai YY, Chong CS, Chai KP, Ranjani V, Illias RM, Chan K-G (2013) Recent discoveries and applications of Anoxybacillus. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97(4):1475–1488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Narberhaus F, Weiglhofer W, Fischer HM, Hennecke H (1996) The Bradyrhizobium japonicum rpoH1 gene encoding a sigma 32-like protein is part of a unique heat shock gene cluster together with groESL1 and three small heat shock genes. J Bacteriol 178(18):5337–5346PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jones RT, Robeson MS, Lauber CL, Hamady M, Knight R, Fierer N (2009) A comprehensive survey of soil acidobacterial diversity using pyrosequencing and clone library analyses. ISME J 3(4):442–453PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, Huber T, Dalevi D, Hu P, Andersen GL (2006) Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(7):5069–5072PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Civil EngineeringThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations