Sulfobacillus benefaciens sp. nov., an acidophilic facultative anaerobic Firmicute isolated from mineral bioleaching operations
- 568 Downloads
Gram-positive bacteria found as the sole Firmicutes present in two mineral bioleaching stirred tanks, and a third bacterium isolated from a heap leaching operation, were shown to be closely related to each other but distinct from characterized acidophilic iron- and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria of the genus Sulfobacillus, to which they were affiliated. One of the isolates (BRGM2) was shown to be a thermo-tolerant (temperature optimum 38.5°C, and maximum 47°C) obligate acidophile (pH optimum 1.5, and minimum 0.8), and also noted to be a facultative anaerobe, growing via ferric iron respiration in the absence of oxygen. Although isolates BRGM2 and TVK8 were able to metabolize many monomeric organic substrates, their propensity for autotrophic growth was found to be greater than that of Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans and the related acidophile, Sb. acidophilus. Faster growth rates of the novel isolates in the absence of organic carbon was considered to be a major reason why they, rather than Sb. thermosulfidooxidans (which shared many physiological characteristics) more successfully exploited conditions in the stirred tanks. Based on their phylogenetic and phenotypic characteristics, the isolates are designated strains of the proposed novel species, Sulfobacillus benefaciens, with isolate BRGM2 nominated as the type strain.
KeywordsAcidophiles Bioleaching Biomining Firmicute Iron Pyrite Sulfobacillus Sulfur
This work was carried out in the frame of Bioshale (European project contract NMP2-CT-2004 505710) and in the frame of BioMinE (European project contract NMP1-CT-500329-1). The authors acknowledge the financial support given to these projects by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development. We also wish to thank our various partners on the projects for their contributions to the work reported in this paper. The authors would like to thank Hafida El Achbouni for her technical support, Dr D.H. Morin (of BRGM) for providing the BRGM-KCC mixed culture, and Professor Jean Euzéby for his expert advice on bacterial nomenclature. DBJ is grateful to the Royal Society (UK) for the award of an Industrial Fellowship.
- Bond PL, Banfield JF (2001) Design and performance of rRNA targeted oligonucleotide probes for in situ detection and phylogenetic identification of microorganisms inhabiting acid mine drainage environments. Microbial Ecol 41:149–161Google Scholar
- d’Hugues P, Joulian C, Spolaore P, Michel C, Garrido F, Morin D (2008) Continuous bioleaching of a pyrite in stirred reactors: population dynamics and exopolysaccharides production vs. bioleaching performances. Hydrometallurgy (in press)Google Scholar
- Goebel BM, Stackebrandt E (1994) The biotechnological importance of molecular biodiversity studies for metal bioleaching. In: Priest FG, Ramos-Cormenzana A, Tindall BJ (eds) Bacterial diversity and systematics (FEMS Symposium No. 75). Plenum Press, New York, pp 259–273Google Scholar
- Golovacheva RS, Karavaiko GI (1978) Sulfobacillus, a new genus of spore forming thermophilic bacteria. Mikrobiologiya 47:815–822Google Scholar
- Huss VAR, Festl H, Schleifer KH (1983) Studies on the spectrophotometric determination of DNA hybridization from renaturation rate. Syst Appl Microbiol 4:184–192Google Scholar
- Melamud VS, Pivovarova TA, Tourova TP, Kalganova TV, Osipov GA, Lysenko AM, Kondrat’eva TF, Karavaiko GI (2003) Sulfobacillus sibiricus sp. nov., a new moderately thermophilic bacterium. Microbiology (English translation of Mikrobiologiya) 72:605–612Google Scholar
- Rawlings DE, Johnson DB (eds) (2007a) Biomining. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Riekkola-Vanhanen M (2007) Talvivaara black schist bioheap-leaching demonstration plant. Adv Mater Res 20–21:30–33Google Scholar
- Wilson K (1987) Preparation of genomic DNA from bacteria. In: Ausubel FM, Brent R, Kingston RE, Moore DD, Seidman JA, Struhl K (eds) Current protocols in molecular biology. Green & Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 2.4.1–2.4.5Google Scholar