Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Persistence of genetically engineeredErwinia carotovora in perturbed and unperturbed aquatic microcosms and effect on recovery of indigenous bacteria

  • Published:
Microbial Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetically engineeredErwinia carotovora persisted significantly longer in thermally perturbed microcosms (35 days) than in nonstressed microcosms (5 days). Decreased pressure of competitors and predators and increased nutrient availability were examined as the most probable reasons for greater vulnerability of perturbed microcosms to colonization by genetically engineered microorganisms (GEMs). Indigenous bacteria that competed with GEMs for the same nutrient sources (protein, cellulose, pectate) were present immediately after perturbation in densities one to two orders of magnitude lower than in unperturbed microcosms, but their populations increased to densities significantly higher than in unperturbed microscosms 10 to 15 days after inoculation. Predators of bacteria (protozoans, cladocerans, nematodes, and rotifers) were present during the experiment in unperturbed microcosms, while dense populations of bacteriovorous nanoflagellates developed in perturbed microcosms. Preemptive inoculation of perturbed microcosms with GEMs did not have a longlasting effect on the recovery of total, proteolytic, cellulolytic, and pectolytic bacteria in perturbed microscosms, indicating the absence of competitive exclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander M (1981) Why microbial predators do not eliminate their prey and hosts. Annu Rev Microbiol 35: 113–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Amy PS, Hiatt HD (1989) Survial and detection of bacteria in an aquatic environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 55: 788–793

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation (1985) Biological examination of water. In: Franson MAH (ed) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, pp 1041–1215

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bloem J, Albert C, Bar-Gillissen MB, Berman T, Cappenberg T (1989) Nutrient cycling through phytoplankton, bacteria, and protozoa, in selectively filtered Lake Vechten water. J Plankton Res 11: 119–131

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brock T (1985) Procaryotic population ecology. In: Halvorson HO, Pramer D, Rogul M (eds) Engineered organisms in the environment: Scientific issues. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp 177–179

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brown JH, Gibson AC (1983) Biogeography, C. V., Mosby, St. Louis, MO

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cairns J Jr, Pratt JR (1986) Factors affecting the acceptance and rejection of genetically altered microorganisms by established natural aquatic communities. In: Poston TM, Purdy R (eds) Aquatic toxicology and environmental fate: Ninth symposium, ASTM STP 921. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA, pp 207–221

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chao WL, Ding RJ, Chen RS (1988) Survival ofYersinia entorolytica in the environment. Can J Microbiol 37: 753–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cuppels D, Kelman A (1974) Evaluation of selective media for isolation of soft-rot bacteria from soil and plant tissue. Phytopathology 64: 468–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. de Boer HS (1982) Survival of phytopathogenic bacteria in soil. In: Mount MS, Lacy GH (eds) Phythopathogenic prokaryotes vol. 1., Academic Press, New York, pp 88–108

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fiksel JR, Covello VT (1986) The suitability and applicability of risk assessment methods for environmental application in biotechnology. In: Fiksel JR, Covello VT (eds) Biotechnology risk assessment: Issues and methods for environmental introductions. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  12. Harrison MD, Franc GD, Maddox DA, Michaud JE, McCarter Zorner NJ (1987) Presence ofErwinia carotovora in surface water in North America. J Appl Bacteriol 62: 565–570

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kotoujansky A (1987) Molecular genetics of pathogenesis by soft-rot erwinias. Ann Rev Phytopathol 25: 405–430

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lacy GH, Lambe RC, Berg CM (1981) Iris soft rot caused byErwinia chrysanthemi, associated with overhead irrigation and its control by chlorination. International Plant Propagators' Society Combined Proceedings for 1981 31: 624–634

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liang LN, Sinclair JL, Mallory LM, Alexander M (1982) Fate in model ecosystems of microbial species of potential use in genetic engineering. Appl Environ Microbiol 44: 708–714

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lindow SE (1987) Competitive exclusion of epiphytic bacteria by ice-Pseudomonas syringae mutants. Appl Environ Microbiol 53: 2520–2527

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Niederlehner BR, Cairns J Jr (1990) Effects of ammonia on periphytic communities. Environ Poll 66:

  18. Owens TG, King FD (1975) The activity measurement of respiratory electron-transport-system activity in marine zooplankton. Marine Biol 30: 27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Perombelon MCM, Kelman A (1980) Ecology of the soft rot erwinias. Annu Rev Phytopathol 18: 361–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Roberts DP, Berman PM, Allen C, Stromberg VK, Mount MS (1986)Erwinia carotovora: Molecular cloning of a 3.4 kilobase DNA fragment mediating production of pectate lyases. Can J Plant Pathol 8: 17–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rodina AG (1965) In: Colwell R, Zambruski MS (eds) Methody vodnoi microbiologii (Translated 1972 as Methods in aquatic microbiology), University Park Press, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  22. Scanferlato VS, Orvos DR, Cairns J Jr, Lacy GH (1989) Genetically-engineeredErwinia carotovora in aquatic microcosms: Survival and effects on functional groups of indigenous bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 55: 1477–1482

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Scanferlato VS, Orvos DR, Lacy GH, Cairns J Jr (1990) Enumerating low densities of genetically engineeredErwinia carotovora in soil. Let Appl Microbiol 10: 55–59

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharples FE (1983) Spread of organisms with novel genotypes: Thoughts from an ecological perspective. Recomb DNA Tech Bull 6: 43–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Simberloff D (1985) Predicting ecological effects of novel organisms: Evidence from higher organisms. In: Halvorson HO, Pramer D, Rogul M (eds) Engineered organisms in the environment: Scientific issues, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp 152–161

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, pp 179–270

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stacey G (1985) TheRhizobium experience. In: Halvorson HO, Pramer D, Rogul M (eds) Engineered organisms in the environment: Scientific issues. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp 109–121

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stanghellini ME (1982) Soft-rotting bacteria in rhizosphere. In: Mount MS, Lacy GH (eds) Phythopathogenic prokaryotes vol. 1., Academic Press, New York, pp 249–261

    Google Scholar 

  29. Strauss HS, Hattis D, Page G, Harrison K, Vogel S, Caldarf C (1984) Genetically-engineered microorganisms: II. Survival, multiplication and genetic transfer, Recomb DNA Tech Bull 9: 69–88

    Google Scholar 

  30. Trevors JT, Mayfield CI, Inniss WE (1982) Measurement of electron transport system (ETS) activity in soil. Microb Ecol 8: 163–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 24061, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Vjera S. Scanferlato, George H. Lacy & John Cairns Jr.

  2. Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 24061, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Vjera S. Scanferlato & John Cairns Jr.

  3. Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 24061, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    George H. Lacy

Authors
  1. Vjera S. Scanferlato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George H. Lacy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Cairns Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scanferlato, V.S., Lacy, G.H. & Cairns, J. Persistence of genetically engineeredErwinia carotovora in perturbed and unperturbed aquatic microcosms and effect on recovery of indigenous bacteria. Microb Ecol 20, 11–20 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02543863

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02543863

Keywords

Search

Navigation