Kitchen sponges are particularly well known to harbor a high number and diversity of bacteria, including pathogens. Viruses, archaea, and eukaryotes in kitchen sponges, however, have not been examined in detail so far. To increase knowledge on the non-bacterial kitchen sponge microbiota and its potential hygienic relevance, we investigated five used kitchen sponges by means of metagenomic shot-gun sequencing. Viral particles were sought to be enriched by a filter step during DNA extraction from the sponges. Data analysis revealed that ~ 2% of the sequences could be assigned to non-bacterial taxa. Each sponge harbored different virus (phage) species, while the present archaea were predominantly affiliated with halophilic taxa. Among the eukaryotic taxa, besides harmless algae, or amoebas, mainly DNA from food-left-overs was found. The presented work offers new insights into the complex microbiota of used kitchen sponges and contributes to a better understanding of their hygienic relevance.
Thousands of microbial species are living in the indoor biome (Martin et al. 2015). They are brought inside through humans, food, clothes, and pets, and are also spread by insects, through water or air (Gilbert and Stephens 2018; Kelley and Gilbert 2013; Prussin et al. 2015). Using a wide variety of cleaning measures and (antimicrobial) cleaning agents, extreme environmental conditions are created, forming special niches for microbial life leading to unique microbial associations in the different sites of a modern household (Gilbert and Stephens 2018; Kelley and Gilbert 2013). Used kitchen sponges probably represent inanimate objects with the highest bacterial loads in households with average counts of ~ 107–1010 CFUs per sponge (Cardinale et al. 2017; Marshall et al. 2012; Rossi et al. 2012). As the sponges are highly porous, usually wet, and rich in nutrients, they form a perfect breeding ground for bacteria and other microorganisms (Donofrio et al. 2012). Cardinale et al. investigated the bacterial community composition of used kitchen sponges and identified Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria as the dominant phyla (Cardinale et al. 2017), which corroborated studies on the overall kitchen microbiota (Flores et al. 2013). They also discovered species of the genera Acinetobacter, Chryseobacterium, and Moraxella, which were categorized as organisms of risk group 2, i.e., as potentially pathogenic (Cardinale et al. 2017). Other studies reported potentially pathogenic bacteria in kitchen sponges, too, such as Klebsiella spp. (Adiga et al. 2012; Marshall et al. 2012; Osaili et al. 2020), Escherichia coli (Adiga et al. 2012; Marshall et al. 2012), or Salmonella spp. (Rossi et al. 2012). Kitchen sponges are not only of hygienic relevance because they produce bad smell, but also because they can transfer pathogens to kitchen surfaces through cross-contamination (Rossi et al. 2013), potentially leading to foodborne illnesses (Greig and Ravel 2009). So far, kitchen sponge studies largely focused on the bacterial community composition, and only a few of them briefly mentioned the presence of other microbial taxa, such as yeasts and molds (Jacksch et al. 2020; Marotta et al. 2018), archaea (Flores et al. 2013; Jacksch et al. 2020), and eukaryotes or viruses (Jacksch et al. 2020). 16S or 18S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing is an easy way to detect microorganisms and allows great insights into their community composition, including yet uncultured taxa, making it the most common method to analyze microbial communities (Gilbert and Stephens 2018; Kelley and Gilbert 2013). In metagenomic shot-gun sequencing (MGS), overlapping regions of genes are sequenced, enabling the simultaneous detection of various organisms and their genetic content without PCR-amplification bias. However, this approach is more expensive, and data analysis is more complex (Ranjan et al. 2016), partly explaining, why the non-bacterial kitchen sponge microbiota might have been neglected so far.
In this study, we used MGS to obtain a more complete picture of the community composition and potential hygienic relevance of the kitchen sponge microbiota. Since bacteriophages and other viral particles are comparatively small, a filter step for virus enrichment was integrated in the procedure of nucleic acid extraction. Our results provide the initial insights into the presence of viruses, archaea, and eukaryotes in used kitchen sponges, and offer a basis for an evaluation of their hygienic relevance.
Materials and methods
Sample collection, preparation, and shot-gun sequencing
Used kitchen sponges (n = 5) were obtained from regular households of 1–2 people where the sponges where mainly used for washing dishes over a period of 3–10 weeks (Table 1). Sponge A came from a student dormitory with 12 students using the sponge. Detailed information about the usage of each kitchen sponge can be found in the supplementary material (Tab. S1).
For each sponge, four cross sections of 0.5 cm width were each vortexed in 10 ml of sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), pH 7.4 (Chazotte 2012), for 20 min to bring the microbial material into solution. Liquids were then collected from each cross section by squeezing them with a sterile syringe. Per section, 3 ml of each suspension were used as “unfiltered” samples, and the rest was filtered with a 0.45 µm pore size-calcium acetate-syringe filter to remove microbial cells and increase the concentration of smaller, viral particles. A negative control (NC) was prepared without sponge tissue and split into an unfiltered and filtered subsample, too.
DNA was extracted from the samples using the Monarch Genomic DNA Purification Kit (New England Biolabs, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions for purification from saliva (Taron et al. 2020). The DNA was eluted twice from the column membranes using 50 µl elution buffer, incubation at 60 °C for 10 min, centrifugation, and reapplying the same 50 µl to the membrane. DNA was quantified with a NanoPhotometer P360 (Implen, München, Germany) and a Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) using the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).
The two highest concentrated sample pairs (unfiltered and filtered) per sponge were selected for MGS. Library preparation was performed with the Illumina DNA Prep kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions using 20 ng of genomic DNA per sample as input and the IDT for Illumina UD Indexes Plate A/Set 1 (Illumina) for the sample-wise indexing. Quality and size profile of the finished libraries were checked using a 2100 Bioanalyzer Instrument with the Agilent DNA 1000 kit (both from Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Quantification of the libraries was performed with the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit as described above.
Libraries were pooled, diluted to a final concentration of 10 pM with 5% PhiX, and sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform using the 500 cycles MiSeq v2 Reagent Kit (Illumina) with a 2 × 250 bp sequencing program.
Data preparation and statistical analysis
Quality control (QC) of the reads was performed with FastQC (Andrews 2020) and MultiQC (Ewels et al. 2016). Quality trimming was performed using Sickle (Joshi and Fass 2011) with a Quality (Q)-Score cut-off at Q30 and a minimum length of 50 bp for sequences to keep. Human and rRNA reads were removed based on the genome sequence of the Genome Reference Consortium Human build 38 patch release 13 (GRCh38.p13) (GENECODE 2020) and the rRNA database of SortMeRNA (Kopylova et al. 2012), respectively, using Bowtie2 (Langmead and Salzberg 2012). De-novo assembly was performed with ABySS (Simpson et al. 2009) using k-mers from 32 to 96 in steps of eight. The assembly was additionally performed with MEGAHIT (Li et al. 2015) and assembly statistics were computed using QUAST (Gurevich et al 2013). To figure out the best alignment produced by the different ABySS k-mers, the assemblies, fitting best to the ones of MEGAHIT, were aligned to the human- and rRNA-reduced reads using Bowtie2. With BLAST + (Camacho et al. 2009), the best matching assembly was searched for the present taxonomy using the nucleotide BLAST “blastn” with a megablast approach and the nucleotide (nt) database. The e-value was set to 1e-5 and to not only receive the first best hit the parameter “max_target_seqs” was set to 5. The statistics software R v.4.0.3 (R Core Team 2020) and RStudio v.1.4.1103 (RStudio Team 2020) were used for further processing of the data. Taxonomy was assigned with the package taxonomizr v.0.6.0 (Sherrill-Mix 2021) based on the accession numbers of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). With a parallel approach, using the packages doParallel v.1.0.16 (Microsoft Corporation and Weston 2020a, b), foreach v.1.5.1 (Microsoft Corporation and Weston 2020b), and doMC v.1.3.7 (Revolution Analytics and Weston 2020), the BLAST results were filtered for the best hit. Contigs with no alignment hit were removed.
Statistical analysis and graphical visualization were performed in R using mainly the packages phyloseq v.1.32.0 (McMurdie and Holmes 2013), ggplot2 v.3.3.3 (Wickham 2016), and ggpubr v.0.4.00 (Kassambara 2020). Based on the three present domains and the virus group, the data set was divided into four smaller data sets, and contigs, not assigned to at least one individual sample, were removed. Taxa of the same type were agglomerated on the taxonomic levels. The dataset was reduced to the top ten taxa to present the abundance of contigs in a plot. Alpha diversity was calculated for the filter types (unfiltered, filtered) and individual sponges using the common alpha-diversity measures of the observed unique taxa, Shannon index, and Simpson index. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the results, followed by p-value adjustment according to Holm (Holm 1979). Multiple pairwise-comparison was conducted as post hoc test using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) (Yandell 1997) with a 95% family-wise confidence level and already adjusted p values.
On average, sequencing resulted in 549,764 raw sequences per sponge sample from which 473,971 remained after quality trimming. The filtered samples delivered 1.7% more reads than the unfiltered samples. The average amount of human reads that were removed was 0.37% and for rRNA reads 0.75%. The MEGAHIT assembly revealed an N50 contig length of 1232 bp. Similar values were achieved with k-mer 56, which reached the highest alignment rates in the assembly QC and was used for further analysis.
Taxonomic composition of the kitchen sponges
42.9% of the assembly contigs were assigned to a taxonomy by BLAST. After removal of contigs not assigned to at least one sample, 782,192 contigs remained in total. On average, around 98% of the sequences per sponge were assigned to the domain Bacteria, ~ 1.6% to Eukaryota, ~ 0.14% to viruses and ~ 0.007% to Archaea (absolute number of sequences affiliated with the respective domain, divided by all assigned sequences, averaged over the five investigated sponges). The bacterial community composition was dominated by the classes Gammaproteobacteria, Flavobacteriia, and Alphaproteobacteria. The NCs only contained bacterial taxa of the species Cutibacterium acnes (phylum Actinobacteria), and Sphingobium amiense and Cellvibrio japonicus (phylum Proteobacteria), which probably originated from the used reagents and kits (Salter et al. 2014). Notably, other domains or viruses were not detected in the NCs. In the following, for the sake of simplicity, the taxonomic ranks are generally referred to as phyla, class, order, family, and genus, even though viruses and eukaryotes may be classified into further subgroups (Burki et al. 2020; International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses 2020).
To viruses, 169 unique contigs were assigned, representing 4 phyla, 5 classes, 7 orders, 10 families, and 56 genera. The most common class, with a relative abundance of 94% over all sponges, was Caudoviricetes with the order Caudovirales (Fig. 1) and the families Podoviridae, Myoviridae, Autographiviridae, and Siphoviridae, whereby each sponge was dominated by a different virus family. The same effect showed up for the genus level, whereby a different dominantly present virus genus was present with specific species for each sponge: Gamaleyavirus with Escherichia virus EC1-UPM and Escherichia virus APEC7, Baikalvirus with Pseudomonas virus PaBG, Scottvirus with Sphingomonas virus Scott, Krampusvirus with different Microbacterium phages, and Schizotequatrovirus with Vibrio virus KVP40. The bacterial hosts of these viruses were also found in the respective sponge samples. Comparing the unfiltered and filtered samples, the latter one showed distinctly higher absolute abundances of present contigs.
To the domain Archaea, 63 unique contigs were assigned, representing 4 phyla, 9 classes, 14 orders, 19 families, and 38 genera. The most common class, present in all five sponges, was Halobacteria with a relative abundance of around 57% overall (Fig. 2). In sponges C and E, only two-to-four different Archaea genera were found, dominated by the genus Haloterrigena from the order Natrialbales. The present Haloterrigena species were Haloterrigena sp. YPL8 and an uncultured Haloterrigena species. In sponge A, the species Natronococcus occultus made up one-third of the identified taxa. The same species was present in sponge B with a relative abundance of 21%, as well as the genus Halorubrum with the species H. sp. PV6 and H. lacusprofundi, and the genus Natrinema with various species. Beside Halobacteria, another common class in sponge D was Methanomicrobia. Overall, this sponge showed a more diverse composition of Archaea genera than the other sponges. Similar to the viruses, the filtered samples here showed slightly higher absolute abundances of contigs than the unfiltered samples.
For the domain Eukaryota, 32,137 unique contigs were identified, representing 29 phyla, 98 classes, 311 orders, 584 families, and 902 genera. Most common, with a relative abundance of 73% overall, was the class Magnoliopsida (Fig. 3), dominantly present in sponge E with the genus Triticum. Other non-microbial genera were, for example, Culex and Aedes of the class Insecta, or Notodromas of the class Ostracoda. In sponge B, most taxa were assigned to the genus Parastrongyloides with the species P. trichosuri from the class Chromadorea. However, this class only accounted for around 5% of the present Eukaryota-classes of all sponges. Other identified genera represented molds like Didymium, Fusarium or Cavenderia, algae like Trebouxia or Plocamiocolax, or ciliates like Tetrahymena. For most of the samples, the filtered ones showed again slightly higher abundances of contigs than the unfiltered ones.
A detailed overview of the abundance of the top ten taxa and their occurrence in the single kitchen sponges can be found in the supplementary material (Tab. S1).
For all domains (Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryota) and the viruses, the calculated alpha-diversity measures (observed unique taxa, Shannon- and Simpson index) showed no statistical significance (ANOVA, p > 0.05) for the difference between the filtered and unfiltered samples. However, the difference in alpha-diversity between the five kitchen sponges revealed statistical significance (ANOVA, p < 0.001) in all calculated alpha-diversity measures. Detailed results of the alpha-diversity statistics can be found in the supplementary material (Fig. S1). Sponge D showed the highest diversity with respect to viruses and Archaea, which was confirmed by Tukey’s HSD, revealing statistical significance (p < 0.001) for the difference in alpha-diversity of sponge D compared to the other sponges. For the viruses, the sponges B and C also showed higher alpha-diversities. The alpha-diversity of eukaryotes was highest in sponge E. Tukey’s HSD indicated statistical significance (p < 0.001) for the difference in alpha-diversity between sponge E and the other sponges for almost all alpha-diversity measures. Furthermore, the difference between sponge B and C revealed to be statistically significant (p < 0.001) by Shannon and Simpson index.
The spread of microorganisms in households and especially in kitchens has been studied increasingly in recent years (Donofrio et al. 2012; Flores et al. 2013; Prussin et al. 2015; Rintala et al. 2008; Speirs et al. 1995). Kitchen sponges were examined as well-known microbial hot spots in the built and kitchen environment, too, albeit with a clear focus on bacteria (Cardinale et al. 2017; Jovanovska et al. 2018; Marotta et al. 2018; Møretrø et al. 2021; Osaili et al. 2020). However, non-bacterial microorganisms such as viruses, archaea, and eukaryotes might also be of hygienic importance (Jacksch et al. 2020). Our study provides an initial impression of this non-bacterial microbiota in used kitchen sponges.
The statistically significant differences between the alpha-diversities of the five analyzed kitchen sponges suggest that the household environment could also affect the presence of viruses, archaea, and eukaryotes in addition to bacteria (Cardinale et al. 2017), forming an individual community for every sponge. Our data suggest that the non-bacterial microbiota only makes up a small fraction of the total sponge microbiota (~ 2%, based on assigned sequences), and that it is mainly composed of non-pathogenic bacteriophages, and halophilic and methanogenic archaea, while the eukaryotic DNA mainly represented non-microbial organisms, including DNA from food residues. Clearly, our results should not be overinterpreted, as only five kitchen sponges were examined here. In addition, our approach was DNA-based, not allowing any differentiation between living and dead organisms, and also discriminating RNA-viruses. Finally, the used DNA extraction and metagenomics analysis kit is, based on information of the manufacturer, not validated for the use with viruses. Therefore, we cannot exclude that most of the detected virus (phage) sequences were prophages inserted in the bacterial genomes and that free DNA viruses might have been discriminated due to insufficient lysis. Nevertheless, we believe that our data provide valuable first insights into the non-bacterial kitchen sponge microbiota.
Overall, the dominant virus order of the kitchen sponges was Caudovirales of the class Caudoviricetes. These belong to the so-called tailed phages that represent the largest of all known virus groups (Ackermann 1996; Ackermann and Prangishvili 2012) and was also the dominant virus group in the sponge study of Jacksch et al. (Jacksch et al. 2020). Caudovirales mainly infect Enterobacteria but generally appear in a wide variety of bacteria (Maniloff and Ackermann 1998). Interestingly, some species of the families Myoviridae and Siphoviridae also infect halophilic or methanogenic archaea (Ackermann 1998; Maniloff and Ackermann 1998; Witte et al. 1997), from which Methanobrevibacter was also present in one of the investigated sponges. The identified Escherichia virus EC1-UPM is known to infect Escherichia coli O78:K80 which causes colibacillosis in poultry (Gan et al. 2013). We did not analyze the specific E. coli strains in our samples, but the virus might be in the kitchen sponge due to contaminated poultry products. Pseudomonas virus PaBG was also detected in the investigated kitchen sponges. It specifically infects Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is often known as antibiotic-resistant pathogen causing nosocomial infections, but also occurs in many other wet habitats (Evseev et al. 2020; Robert Koch-Institut 2017). Pseudomonas aeruginosa was indeed present in the sponge samples. Vibrio virus KVP40 is known to infect Vibrio cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus, and other species of the family Vibrionaceae (Matsuzaki et al. 1992), which was also present in the kitchen sponges. However, the Vibrio cholerae species were most likely not the infectious ones (Schwartz et al. 2019). As kitchen sponges host many bacteria (Cardinale et al. 2017), it was expectable to detect bacteriophages here. These phages might influence bacterial community composition and diversity through selective lysis or horizontal gene transfer (Fuhrman 1999). Especially, the latter might play a role in the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes (Balcazar 2014; Lerminiaux and Cameron 2019).
The identified Archaea species predominantly belonged to the class Halobacteria, which is a halophilic taxon and one of the largest groups within its domain (Gupta et al. 2015). Halobacteria usually prefer environments with salt concentrations of 20% and form biofilms (Pfeifer 2017), which enables them to withstand such extreme conditions. The presence of these halophils inside the kitchen sponges suggests a potential retention of salt in the sponges maybe resulting from a salty human diet (World Health Organization 2021). Cardinale et al. already detected bacterial biofilm formation in kitchen sponges (Cardinale et al. 2017), clearly marking sponges as a favorable site for this protective measure against environmental stressors. In our study, the analyzed kitchen sponges contained halophiles of the genus Natrinema, from which some live strictly aerobic and others anaerobic (McGenity et al. 1998; Xin et al. 2000), and the species Halorubrum lacusprofundi, which is additionally psychrotolerant (Anderson et al. 2016). Furthermore, the haloalkaliphilic archaeon Natronococcus occultus was detected, that prefers a pH range of 8.5–11 in addition to the extreme salt conditions (Tindall et al. 1984). Corroborating the results of Jacksch et al., we also identified methanogens (Jacksch et al. 2020) like the Archaea-class Methanomicrobia. Their intolerance to oxygen (Laskar et al. 2018) points to anaerobic conditions inside the sponges, likely caused by waterlogging, biofilm formation, and the oxygen consumption by the large number of bacteria. Members of the class Methanomicrobia are typically found in marine or freshwater sediments, and several have adapted to a variety of conditions from low to high pH, different temperatures, nutrients, or salt contents (Browne et al. 2017; Dworkin and Falkow 2006). Interestingly, humans also represent a possible source of Halobacteria and Methanobacteria, as they have been detected on human skin, too (Umbach et al. 2021).
For many eukaryotes, interpretation of the presence of their DNA was more difficult. Most of the assigned sequences probably stem from food left-overs or DNA residues on tropical fruits or similar objects, but not from living organisms. Examples are the parasitic roundworm Parastrongyloides trichosuri that infects the brushtail possum, living in Australia and New Zealand (Garcia 1999; Hunt et al. 2016), or species of the mosquito genera Culex and Aedes, that are not occurring in southern Germany (Biogents 2016; Samy et al. 2016). We additionally identified the genera Didymium and Cavenderia of the class Eumycetozoa, that comprises groups like true slime molds, or protosteloid amoebae (Stephenson and Schnittler 2017). They can be found in terrestrial ecosystems or freshwater and function as bacterivores, predators of fungi and bacteria, and recycler of nutrients, making a domestic kitchen sponge an attractive habitat for them (Spiegel et al. 2017). The algal families Trebouxiophyceae and Florideophyceae, as well as the ciliate Tetrahymena occur in different waters and terrestrial environments (Leliaert et al. 2012; Ruehle et al. 2016; Yoon et al. 2017) and might have entered the sponges via tap water. The detected fungal genus Fusarium comprises mycotoxin producer affecting mainly wheat and maize but also other crops (Munkvold 2017) and might stem from left-overs of grain products.
Cleaning and dietary habits might have led to the observed differences in taxonomic diversity between the five kitchen sponges (Cardinale et al. 2017), pointing to a “unique microbial fingerprint” (Lax et al. 2014). However, a definitive statement requires a larger number of samples. With regard to the filter step used, especially for the viral taxonomy, the filtered samples showed a higher absolute abundance of assigned contigs than the unfiltered samples. This might be due to an enrichment of viral particles and free viral DNA with a simultaneous reduction in bacterial cells through the filter step (Hall et al. 2014). Such filtration is used as a preparative step in virus enrichment methods via ultracentrifugation (Lawrence and Steward 2010; Thurber et al. 2009). The slight enrichment of archaeal or eukaryotic DNA might result from free DNA of damaged cells.
In summary, our small-scale study suggests that kitchen sponges harbor a small, but diverse and biologically very interesting non-bacterial microbiota comprising bacteriophages, archaea, fungi, algae, and other small eukaryotes, which probably interact with the bacterial microbiota. However, from a hygienic point of view, e.g., regarding the spread of infectious diseases, this microbiota is probably of minor importance. Follow-up experiments with more sponges will enable deeper statistical analyses and hypothesis testing, e.g., regarding the influence of cleaning measures and other environmental factors on the total sponge microbiota. In addition, RNA-based analysis will help to unravel, the active (living) fractions of the microbiota. Virome analyses should target RNA-viruses in addition to DNA viruses and should include additional enrichment steps, e.g., using density gradient ultracentrifugation.
Data availability statement
Sequences generated and analyzed here are accessible at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the accession number PRJEB49259. Subject metadata is included in the supplementary Table S1. Only open-source code from the cited R (v.4.0.3) packages (taxonomizr v.0.6.0, doParallel v.1.0.16, foreach v.1.5.1, doMC v.1.3.7, phyloseq v.1.32.0, ggplot2 v.3.3.3, ggpubr v.0.4.0) was used, using either the default settings or the settings stated in the methods section. Further information for clarification is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ackermann HW (1996) Frequency of morphological phage descriptions in 1995. Arch Virol 141:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01718394
Ackermann H-W (1998) Tailed bacteriophages: the order caudovirales, vol 51. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 135–201
Ackermann H-W, Prangishvili D (2012) Prokaryote viruses studied by electron microscopy. Arch Virol 157:1843–1849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-012-1383-y
Adiga I, Shobha KL, Mustaffa MB, Bismi NHB, Yusof NHB, Ibrahim NL, Norazira NB (2012) Bacterial Contamination in the Kitchen: Could It Be Pathogenic? Webmed Central Med Edu 3:WMC003256
Anderson IJ, DasSarma P, Lucas S, Copeland A, Lapidus A, Del Rio TG, Tice H, Dalin E, Bruce DC, Goodwin L, Pitluck S, Sims D, Brettin TS, Detter JC, Han CS, Larimer F, Hauser L, Land M, Ivanova N, Richardson P, Cavicchioli R, DasSarma S, Woese CR, Kyrpides NC (2016) Complete genome sequence of the Antarctic Halorubrum lacusprofundi type strain ACAM 34. Stand Genomic Sci 11:70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-016-0194-2
Andrews S (2020) FastQC. https://github.com/s-andrews/FastQC. Accessed 18 August 2020
Balcazar JL (2014) Bacteriophages as vehicles for antibiotic resistance genes in the environment. PLoS Pathog 10:e1004219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004219
Biogents (2016) Aedes aegypti, die Gelbfiebermücke. https://eu.biogents.com/aedes-aegypti-gelbfiebermuecke/?lang=de. Accessed 16 January 2022
Browne P, Tamaki H, Kyrpides N, Woyke T, Goodwin L, Imachi H, Bräuer S, Yavitt JB, Liu W-T, Zinder S, Cadillo-Quiroz H (2017) Genomic composition and dynamics among Methanomicrobiales predict adaptation to contrasting environments. ISME J 11:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.104
Burki F, Roger AJ, Brown MW, Simpson AGB (2020) The new tree of eukaryotes. Trends Ecol Evol 35:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.008
Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, Madden TL (2009) BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform 10:421. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-421
Cardinale M, Kaiser D, Lueders T, Schnell S, Egert M (2017) Microbiome analysis and confocal microscopy of used kitchen sponges reveal massive colonization by Acinetobacter Moraxella and Chryseobacterium species. Sci Rep 7:5791. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06055-9
Chazotte B (2012) Labeling golgi with fluorescent ceramides. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.prot070599
Donofrio RS, Bechanko R, Hitt N, O’Malley K, Charnauski T, Bestervelt LL, Saha N, Saha R (2012) Are we aware of microbial hotspots in our household? J Environ Health 75:12–19
Dworkin M, Falkow S (2006) Archaea, Bacteria: Firmicutes, Actinomycetes 3rd edn. The prokaryotes, a handbook on the biology of bacteria, vol 3. Springer, New York
Evseev P, Sykilinda N, Gorshkova A, Kurochkina L, Ziganshin R, Drucker V, Miroshnikov K (2020) Pseudomonas phage PaBG-A jumbo member of an old parasite family. Viruses. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12070721
Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, Käller M (2016) MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics 32:3047–3048. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354
Flores GE, Bates ST, Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Leff JW, Knight R, Fierer N (2013) Diversity, distribution and sources of bacteria in residential kitchens. Environ Microbiol 15:588–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12036
Fuhrman JA (1999) Marine viruses and their biogeochemical and ecological effects. Nature 399:541–548. https://doi.org/10.1038/21119
Gan HM, Sieo CC, Tang SGH, Omar AR, Ho YW (2013) The complete genome sequence of EC1-UPM, a novel N4-like bacteriophage that infects Escherichia coli O78:K80. Virol J 10:308. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-10-308
Garcia LS (1999) Classification of human parasites, vectors, and similar organisms. Clin Infect Dis 29:734–736. https://doi.org/10.1086/520425
GENCODE (2020) Human Release 37 (GRCh38.p13). https://www.gencodegenes.org/human/. Accessed 9 February 2021
Gilbert JA, Stephens B (2018) Microbiology of the built environment. Nat Rev Microbiol 16:661–670. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0065-5
Greig JD, Ravel A (2009) Analysis of foodborne outbreak data reported internationally for source attribution. Int J Food Microbiol 130:77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.12.031
Gupta RS, Naushad S, Baker S (2015) Phylogenomic analyses and molecular signatures for the class Halobacteria and its two major clades: a proposal for division of the class Halobacteria into an emended order Halobacteriales and two new orders, Haloferacales ord. nov. and Natrialbales ord. nov., containing the novel families Haloferacaceae fam. nov. and Natrialbaceae fam. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 65:1050–1069. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.070136-0
Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G (2013) QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 29:1072–1075. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086
Hall RJ, Wang J, Todd AK, Bissielo AB, Yen S, Strydom H, Moore NE, Ren X, Huang QS, Carter PE, Peacey M (2014) Evaluation of rapid and simple techniques for the enrichment of viruses prior to metagenomic virus discovery. J Virol Methods 195:194–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.08.035
Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70
Hunt VL, Tsai IJ, Coghlan A, Reid AJ, Holroyd N, Foth BJ, Tracey A, Cotton JA, Stanley EJ, Beasley H, Bennett HM, Brooks K, Harsha B, Kajitani R, Kulkarni A, Harbecke D, Nagayasu E, Nichol S, Ogura Y, Quail MA, Randle N, Xia D, Brattig NW, Soblik H, Ribeiro DM, Sanchez-Flores A, Hayashi T, Itoh T, Denver DR, Grant W, Stoltzfus JD, Lok JB, Murayama H, Wastling J, Streit A, Kikuchi T, Viney M, Berriman M (2016) The genomic basis of parasitism in the Strongyloides clade of nematodes. Nat Genet 48:299–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3495
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (2020) The new scope of virus taxonomy: partitioning the virosphere into 15 hierarchical ranks. Nat Microbiol 5:668–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0709-x
Jacksch S, Thota J, Shetty S, Smidt H, Schnell S, Egert M (2020) Metagenomic analysis of regularly microwave-treated and untreated domestic kitchen sponges. Microorganisms 8(5):736. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8050736
Joshi NA, Fass JN (2011) Sickle: A sliding-window, adaptive, quality-based trimming tool for FastQ files. https://github.com/najoshi/sickle. Accessed 16 April 2021
Jovanovska S, Quirant L, Davidovikj D, Popeijus HE (2018) Invisible cohabitants: investigating the microbial presence in the kitchen sponges of maastricht. MJLA 10:69–83. https://doi.org/10.26481/mjla.2018.v10.597
Kassambara A (2020) ggpubr: 'ggplot2' Based Publication Ready Plots. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr. Accessed 20 April 2021
Kelley ST, Gilbert JA (2013) Studying the microbiology of the indoor environment. Genome Biol 14:202. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-2-202
Kopylova E, Noé L, Touzet H (2012) SortMeRNA: fast and accurate filtering of ribosomal RNAs in metatranscriptomic data. Bioinformatics 28:3211–3217. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts611
Langmead B, Salzberg SL (2012) Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9:357–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1923
Laskar F, Das Purkayastha S, Sen A, Bhattacharya MK, Misra BB (2018) Diversity of methanogenic archaea in freshwater sediments of lacustrine ecosystems. J Basic Microbiol 58:101–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/jobm.201700341
Lawrence JE, Steward GF (2010) Purification of viruses by centrifugation. In: Wilhelm S, Weinbauer M, Suttle C (eds) Manual of Aquatic Viral Ecology. American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Waco, pp 166–181
Lax S, Smith DP, Hampton-Marcell J, Owens SM, Handley KM, Scott NM, Gibbons SM, Larsen P, Shogan BD, Weiss S, Metcalf JL, Ursell LK, Vázquez-Baeza Y, van Treuren W, Hasan NA, Gibson MK, Colwell R, Dantas G, Knight R, Gilbert JA (2014) Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science 345:1048–1052. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254529
Lerminiaux NA, Cameron ADS (2019) Horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes in clinical environments. Can J Microbiol 65:34–44. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjm-2018-0275
Li D, Liu C-M, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T-W (2015) MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31:1674–1676. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv033
Maniloff J, Ackermann HW (1998) Taxonomy of bacterial viruses: establishment of tailed virus genera and the order Caudovirales. Arch Virol 143:2051–2063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007050050442
Marotta SM, Giarratana F, Calvagna A, Ziino G, Giuffrida A, Panebianco A (2018) Study on microbial communities in domestic kitchen sponges: evidence of cronobacter sakazakii and extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) producing bacteria. Ital J Food Saf 7:7672. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijfs.2018.7672
Marshall BM, Robleto E, Dumont T, Levy SB (2012) The frequency of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in homes differing in their use of surface antibacterial agents. Curr Microbiol 65:407–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-012-0172-x
Martin LJ, Adams RI, Bateman A, Bik HM, Hawks J, Hird SM, Hughes D, Kembel SW, Kinney K, Kolokotronis S-O, Levy G, McClain C, Meadow JF, Medina RF, Mhuireach G, Moreau CS, Munshi-South J, Nichols LM, Palmer C, Popova L, Schal C, Täubel M, Trautwein M, Ugalde JA, Dunn RR (2015) Evolution of the indoor biome. Trends Ecol Evol 30:223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.02.001
Matsuzaki S, Tanaka S, Koga T, Kawata T (1992) A broad-host-range vibriophage, KVP40, isolated from sea water. Microbiol Immunol 36:93–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1348-0421.1992.tb01645.x
McGenity TJ, Gemmell RT, Grant WD (1998) Proposal of a new halobacterial genus Natrinema gen. nov., with two species Natrinema pellirubrum nom. Nov. and Natrinema pallidum nom. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 48(4):1187–1196. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-48-4-1187
McMurdie PJ, Holmes S (2013) phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8:e61217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217
Microsoft Corporation, Weston S (2020a) doParallel: foreach parallel adaptor for the ‘parallel’ package. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=doParallel. Accessed 16 April 2021
Microsoft Corporation, Weston S (2020b) foreach: provides foreach looping construct. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=foreach. Accessed 16 April 2021
Møretrø T, Moen B, Almli VL, Teixeira P, Ferreira VB, Åsli AW, Nilsen C, Langsrud S (2021) Dishwashing sponges and brushes: consumer practices and bacterial growth and survival. Int J Food Microbiol 337:108928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108928
Munkvold GP (2017) Fusarium Species and Their Associated Mycotoxins. In: Moretti A, Susca A (eds) Mycotoxigenic Fungi, vol 1542. Springer, New York, pp 51–106
Osaili TM, Obaid RS, Alowais K, Almahmood R, Almansoori M, Alayadhi N, Alowais N, Waheed K, Dhanasekaran DK, Al-Nabulsi AA, Ayyash M, Forsythe SJ (2020) Microbiological quality of kitchens sponges used in university student dormitories. BMC Public Health 20:1322. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09452-4
Pfeifer F (2017) Rote Überlebenskünstler in Salzlagunen. Biospektrum 23:11–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12268-017-0757-9
Prussin AJ, Garcia EB, Marr LC (2015) Total virus and bacteria concentrations in indoor and outdoor air. Environ Sci Technol Lett 2:84–88. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00050
R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. r foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org. Accessed 16 April 2021
Ranjan R, Rani A, Metwally A, McGee HS, Perkins DL (2016) Analysis of the microbiome: advantages of whole genome shotgun versus 16S amplicon sequencing. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 469:967–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.12.083
Revolution Analytics, Weston S (2020) doMC: foreach parallel adaptor for ‘parallel’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=doMC
Rintala H, Pitkäranta M, Toivola M, Paulin L, Nevalainen A (2008) Diversity and seasonal dynamics of bacterial community in indoor environment. BMC Microbiol 8:56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-8-56
Robert Koch-Institut (2017) Pseudomonas aeruginosa. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Antibiotikaresistenz/nosokomiale_Erreger/Pseudomonas.html. Accessed 17 May 2021
Rossi EM, Scapin D, Grando WF, Tondo EC (2012) Microbiological contamination and disinfection procedures of kitchen sponges used in food services. Food Nutr Sci 03:975–980. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2012.37129
Rossi EM, Scapin D, Tondo EC (2013) Survival and transfer of microorganisms from kitchen sponges to surfaces of stainless steel and polyethylene. J Infect Dev Ctries 7:229–234. https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.2472
RStudio Team (2020) RStudio: integrated development environment for R. RStudio, PBC., Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/. Accessed 16 April 2021
Salter SJ, Cox MJ, Turek EM, Calus ST, Cookson WO, Moffatt MF, Turner P, Parkhill J, Loman NJ, Walker AW (2014) Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol 12:87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z
Samy AM, Elaagip AH, Kenawy MA, Ayres CFJ, Peterson AT, Soliman DE (2016) Climate change influences on the global potential distribution of the mosquito culex quinquefasciatus, vector of west Nile virus and lymphatic filariasis. PLoS ONE 11:e0163863. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163863
Schwartz K, Hammerl JA, Göllner C, Strauch E (2019) Environmental and clinical strains of vibrio cholerae Non-O1, Non-O139 From Germany possess similar virulence gene profiles. Front Microbiol 10:733. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00733
Sherrill-Mix S (2021) taxonomizr: Functions to Work with NCBI Accessions and Taxonomy. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=taxonomizr. Accessed 16 April 2021
Simpson JT, Wong K, Jackman SD, Schein JE, Jones SJM, Birol I (2009) ABySS: a parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res 19:1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.089532.108
Speirs JP, Anderton A, Anderson JG (1995) A study of the microbial content of the domestic kitchen. Int J Environ Health Res 5:109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603129509356839
Spiegel FW, Shadwick LL, Ndiritu GG, Brown MW, Aguilar M, Shadwick JD (2017) Protosteloid Amoebae (Protosteliida, Protosporangiida, Cavosteliida, Schizoplasmodiida, Fractoviteliida, and Sporocarpic Members of Vannellida, Centramoebida, and Pellitida). In: Archibald JM, Simpson AG, Slamovits CH (eds) Handbook of the Protists. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1311–1348
Stephenson SL, Schnittler M (2017) Myxomycetes. In: Archibald JM, Simpson AG, Slamovits CH (eds) Handbook of the Protists. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1405–1431
Taron B, Luck A, Xu Y, Nichols N, Cantor E (2020) Purification of synthetic SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA from biological samples using the Monarch Total RNA Miniprep Kit and the Monarch RNA Cleanup Kit: Flexible workflows expand the utility of Monarch RNA Purification Kits. https://www.neb.com/-/media/nebus/files/application-notes/purification_of_synthetic_sars-cov-2_viral_rna.pdf?rev=4cea7953e3d141749bd6e1efd8bd562f. Accessed 8 March 2021
Thurber RV, Haynes M, Breitbart M, Wegley L, Rohwer F (2009) Laboratory procedures to generate viral metagenomes. Nat Protoc 4:470–483. https://doi.org/10.1038/NPROT.2009.10
Tindall BJ, Ross H, Grant WD (1984) Natronobacterium gen. nov. and Natronococcus gen. nov., Two New Genera of Haloalkaliphilic Archaebacteria. Syst Appl Microbiol 5:41–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0723-2020(84)80050-8
Umbach AK, Stegelmeier AA, Neufeld JD (2021) Archaea are rare and uncommon members of the mammalian skin microbiome. mSystems 6:0064221. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00642-21
Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Use! R. Springer, Cham
Witte A, Baranyi U, Klein R, Sulzner M, Luo C, Wanner G, Krüger DH, Lubitz W (1997) Characterization of Natronobacterium magadii phage phi Ch1, a unique archaeal phage containing DNA and RNA. Mol Microbiol 23:603–616. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.d01-1879.x
World Health Organization (2021) WHO global sodium benchmarks for different food categorie. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025097. Accessed 5 October 2021
Xin H, Itoh T, Zhou P, Suzuki K, Kamekura M, Nakase T (2000) Natrinema versiforme sp. Nov., an extremely halophilic archaeon from Aibi salt lake, Xinjiang China. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 50(3):1297–1303. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-50-3-1297
Yandell BS (1997) Practical data analysis for designed experiments, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall texts in statistical science series, London
The authors want to thank all the sponge-donors, who supported this work.
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (project WMP, grant number 13FH197PX6)) and by in-house funding to the Institute of Precision Medicine by Furtwangen University.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Communicated by Erko Stackebrandt.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file2 Table S1: Sample metadata and abundance of top 10 viral, archaeal, and eukaryotic taxa. (XLSX 20 KB)
About this article
Cite this article
Brandau, L., Jacksch, S., Weis, S. et al. Minority report: small-scale metagenomic analysis of the non-bacterial kitchen sponge microbiota. Arch Microbiol 204, 363 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-022-02969-9
- Built environment
- Kitchen sponge
- Metagenomic shot-gun sequencing