Typical methanogenic inhibitors can considerably alter bacterial populations and affect the interaction between fatty acid degraders and homoacetogens
- 584 Downloads
The effects of two typical methanogenic inhibitors [2-bromoethanesulfonate (BES) and chloroform (CHCl3)] on the bacterial populations were investigated using molecular ecological techniques. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analyses (T-RFLP) in combination with clone library showed that both the toxicants not only inhibited methanogenic activity but also considerably altered the bacterial community structure. Species of low % G + C Gram-positive bacteria (Clostridiales), high % G + C Actinomycetes, and uncultured Chloroflexi showed relatively greater tolerance of CHCl3, whereas the BES T-RFLP patterns were characterized by prevalence of Geobacter hydrogenophilus and homoacetogenic Moorella sp. In addition, due to indirect thermodynamic inhibition caused by high hydrogen partial pressures, the growth of obligately syntrophic acetogenic Syntrophomonas and Syntrophobacter was also affected by selective inhibition of methanogenesis. Interestingly, by comparing the fermentative intermediates detected in BES- and CHCl3-treated experiments, it was furthermore found that when methanogenesis is specifically inhibited, the syntrophic interaction between hydrogen-producing fatty acid degraders and hydrogen-utilizating homoacetogens seemed to be strengthened.
KeywordsMethanogenic inhibitor T-RFLP Redundancy analysis Fluorescence in situ hybridization Syntrophic interaction
We thank the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions that improved the manuscript. This study was financially supported by the Major State Basic Research Development Program (973 Program) of China (No. 2007CB714036), the Tai-Lake Water Specific Program of Jiangsu Province (No. BS2007098), the Key Technologies R&D Program (Social Development) of Jiangsu Province (No. BE2008627), and State Key Lab of Urban Water Resource and Environment (HIT; No. QAK200807).
- Amann R (1995) In situ identification of microorganisms by whole cell hybridization with rRNA-targeted nucleic acid probes. In: Akkermans A, van Elsas J, de Bruin F (eds) Molecular microbial ecology manual, 1st edn. Kluwer, London, pp 1–15Google Scholar
- Buckel W (1999) Anaerobic energy metabolism. In: Lengeler JW, Drews G, Schlegel HG (eds) Biology of the prokaryotes. Wiley-Blackwell, Stuttgart, pp 278–326Google Scholar
- Cord-Ruwisch R, Lovley DR, Schink B (1998) Growth of Geobacter sulfurreducens with acetate in syntrophic cooperation with hydrogen-oxidizing anaerobic partners. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:2232–2236Google Scholar
- Hansen KH, Ahring BK, Raskin L (1999) Quantification of syntrophic fatty acid–oxidizing bacteria in a mesophilic biogas reactor by oligonucleotide probe hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:4767–4774Google Scholar
- Harmsen HJM, Kengen HMP, Akkermans ADL, Stams AJM, Devos WM (1996) Detection and localization of syntrophic propionate-oxidizing bacteria in granular sludge by in situ hybridization using 16S rRNA-based oligonucleotide probes. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:1656–1663Google Scholar
- Iannotti E, Kafkewitz D, Wolin M, Bryant M (1973) Glucose fermentation products in Ruminococcus albus grown in continuous culture with Vibrio succinogenes: changes caused by interspecies transfer of H2. J Bacteriol 114:1231–1240Google Scholar
- Kemp PF, Aller JY (2004) Estimating prokaryotic diversity: when are 16S rDNA libraries large enough? Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2:114–125Google Scholar
- Löffler FE, Ritalahti KM, Tiedje JM (1997) Dechlorination of chloroethenes is inhibited by 2-bromoethanesulfonate in the absence of methanogens. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4982–4985Google Scholar
- McInerney MJ, Bryant MP (1981) Basic principles of bioconversions in anaerobic digestion and methanogenesis. In: Sofer SS, Zaborsky OR (eds) Biomass conversion processes for energy and fuels. Plenum, New York, pp 277–296Google Scholar
- Thauer RK, Jungermann K, Decker K (1977) Energy conservation in chemotrophic anaerobic bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 41:100–180Google Scholar