Advertisement

Energy, Ecology and Environment

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 102–109 | Cite as

Profiling of heavy metal(loid)-resistant bacterial community structure by metagenomic-DNA fingerprinting using PCR–DGGE for monitoring and bioremediation of contaminated environment

  • Jatindra N. Bhakta
  • Susmita Lahiri
  • Feroze A. Bhuiyna
  • Md. Rokunuzzaaman
  • Kouhei Ohonishi
  • Kozo Iwasaki
  • Bana B. Jana
Original Article

Abstract

Frequent exposure of microbes to hazardous metalloids/heavy metals in contaminated environment results in the development of heavy metal(loid)-resistance properties. The study attempted to assess the profile of elevated arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)—resistant bacterial community structures of sludge (S1, India), sludge and sediment (S2 and S3, Japan) and sediment (S4, Vietnam) samples by metagenomic-DNA fingerprinting using polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR–DGGE) for monitoring and bioremediation of hazardous metal(loid) contamination in environment. The results revealed that As-resistant bacteria were dominant compared to Cd- and Hg-resistant bacteria with higher species diversity (Lysinibacillus sp., Uncultured soil bacterium clone, Staphylococcus sciuri, Bacillus fastidiosus, Bacillus niacini, Clostridium sp. and Bacillus sp.) in S1 and S4 than that of S2 and S3 samples. The occurrence of dominant As-resistant bacteria may indicate arsenic contamination in the investigated coastal habitats of India, Japan and Vietnam. The As-, Cd- and Hg-resistant bacteria/bacterial consortiums showed appreciable uptake ability of respective metal(loid) (0.042–0.125 mg As/l, 0.696–0.726 mg Cd/l and 0.34–0.412 mg Hg/l). Therefore, it might be concluded that the profiling of metalloids/heavy metal-resistant bacterial community structure by metagenomic-DNA fingerprinting using PCR–DGGE could be used to explore high metal(loid)-resistant bacteria for applying in metal(loid) bioremediation and as an indicator for monitoring hazardous metal(loid) contamination in environment.

Keywords

Metal(loid) Resistant Metagenomics Bacterial diversity Environmental contamination Bioremediation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to Japan Society for the promotion of Science (JSPS) for sponsoring research fund and fellowship (FY2009 JSPS postdoctoral fellowship) to Dr. Bhakta to carry out the study. Authors are also especially grateful to Dr. J. K. Pittman for reviewing the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbas SZ, Riaz M, Ramzan N, Zahid MT, Shakoori FR, Rafatullah M (2014) Isolation and characterization of arsenic resistant bacteria from wastewater. Braz J Microbiol 45:1309–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbas SZ, Rafatullah M, Ismail N, Lalung J (2015) Isolation and characterization of Cd-resistant bacteria from industrial wastewater. Desalin Water Treat 56:1037–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altimira F, Yáñez C, Bravo G, González M, Rojas LA, Seeger M (2012) Characterization of copper–resistant bacteria and bacterial communities from copper–polluted agricultural soils of central Chile. BMC Microbiol 12:193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhakta JN (2016) Microbial response against metal toxicity. In: Rathoure AK, Dhatwalia VK (eds) Toxicity and waste management using bioremediation. IGI Global, PA, pp 75–96.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9734-8.ch004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhakta JN (2017) Metal toxicity in microorganism. In: Bhakta JN (ed) Handbook of research on inventive bioremediation techniques. IGI Global, PA, pp 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2325-3.ch001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhakta JN, Munekage Y (2008) Role of ecosystem components in Cd removal process of aquatic ecosystem. Ecol Eng 32:274–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhakta JN, Munekage Y (2010) Mercury removal by some soils of Japan from aquatic environment. Environ Eng Manag J 9(4):503–510Google Scholar
  8. Bhakta JN, Ohnishi K, Munekage Y, Iwasaki K (2010) Isolation and probiotic characterization of arsenic–resistant lactic acid bacteria for uptaking arsenic. Int J Chem Biol Eng 3:4Google Scholar
  9. Bhakta JN, Munekage Y, Ohnishi K, Jana BB (2012a) Isolation and identification of cadmium and lead resistant lactic acid bacteria for applying as metal removing probiotic. Int J Environ Sci Technol 9:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhakta JN, Ohnishi K, Munekage Y, Iwasaki K, Wei M (2012b) Characterization of lactic acid bacteria–based probiotics as heavy metals sorbents. J Appl Microbiol 112:1193–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhakta JN, Munekage Y, Ohnishi K, Jana BB, Balcazar JL (2014) Isolation and characterization of cadmium and arsenic absorbing bacteria for bioremediation. Water Air Soil Pollut 225(10):2151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2151-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bidstrup PC (1964) Toxicity of mercury and its compounds. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell JH, Clark JS, John CZ (2009) PCR–DGGE comparison of bacterial community structure in fresh and archived soils sampled along a Chihuahuan Desert elevational gradient. Microb Ecol 57(2):261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carpio IE, Machado-Santelli G, Sakata SK, Ferreira Filho SS, Rodrigues DF (2014) Copper removal using a heavy-metal resistant microbial consortium in a fixed-bed reactor. Water Res 62:156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpio IEM, Franco DC, Sato MIZ, Sakata S, Pellizari VH, Ferreira Filho SS, Rodrigues DF (2016) Biostimulation of metal-resistant microbial consortium to remove zinc from contaminated environments. Sci Total Environ 550:670–675.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curtis TP, Sloan WT (2004) Prokaryotic diversity and its limits: microbial community structure in nature and implications for microbial ecology. Curr Opin Microbiol 7:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dinsdale EA, Edwards RA, Hall D et al (2008) Functional metagenomic profiling of nine biomes. Nature 452:629–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Figueiredo NL, Canário J, O’Driscoll NJ, Duarte A, Carvalho C (2016) Aerobic Mercury-resistant bacteria alter Mercury speciation and retention in the Tagus Estuary (Portugal). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 124:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gadd GM (1990) Heavy metal accumulation by bacteria and other microorganisms. Experientia 46:834–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giller K, Witter E, McGrath SP (1998) Toxicity of heavy metals to microorganisms and microbial processes in agricultural soils: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1389–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gupta UC, Gupta SC (1998) Trace element toxicity relationships to crop production and livestock and human health: implications for management. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 29(11–14):1491–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Handelsman J (2004) Metagenomics: application of genomics to uncultured microorganisms. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68:669–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Handelsman J, Rondon MR, Brady SF, Clardy J, Goodman RM (1998) Molecular biological access to the chemistry of unknown soil microbes: a new frontier for natural products. Chem Biol 5:R245–R249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoover J, Gonzales M, Shuey C, Barney Y, Lewis J (2017) Elevated arsenic and uranium concentrations in unregulated water sources on the Navajo Nation, USA. Expo Health 9:113–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-016-0226-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jafari SA, Cheraghi S (2014) Mercury removal from aqueous solution by dried biomass of indigenous Vibrio parahaemolyticus PG02: kinetic, equilibrium, and thermodynamic studies. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 92:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar S, Krishnani KK, Bhushan B, Brahmane MP (2015) Metagenomics: retrospect and prospects in high throughput age. Biotech Res Int 2015, Article ID 121735, p 13. https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/121735
  27. Kunin V, Copeland A, Lapidus A, Mavromatis K, Hugenholtz P (2008) A bioinformatician’s guide to metagenomics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 72:557–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kvasnova S, Hamarová L, Pristaš P (2017) Zinc bioaccumulation by microbial consortium isolated from nickel smelter sludge disposal site. Nova Biotechnol Chim 16:48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1515/nbec-2017-0007 Google Scholar
  29. Li Z, Xu J, Tang C, Wu J, Muhammad A, Wang H (2006) Application of 16S rRNA PCR amplification and DGGE fingerprinting for detection of shift microbial community diversity in Cu–, Zn– and Cd–contaminated paddy soil. Chemosphere 62:1374–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lim KT, Shukor MY, Wasoh H (2014) Physical, chemical, and biological methods for the removal of arsenic compounds. BioMed Res Int 2014, Article ID 503784, p 9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/503784
  31. Logue JB, Bürgmann H, Robinson CT (2008) Progress in the ecological genetics and biodiversity of freshwater bacteria. Bioscience 58:103–113.  https://doi.org/10.1641/B580205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martínez-Alonso M, Escolano J, Montesinos E, Gaju N (2010) Diversity of the bacterial community in the surface soil of a pear orchard based on 16S rRNA gene analysis. Int Microbiol 13(3):123–134Google Scholar
  33. Min-sheng H, Jing P, Le-ping Z (2001) Removal of heavy metals from aqueous solutions using bacteria. J Shanghai Univ 5(3):253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Brien S, Buckling A (2015) Hijacking the social lives of microbial populations to clean up heavy metal contamination. EMBO Rep 16:1241–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pettit RK (2004) Soil DNA libraries for anticancer drug discovery. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 54:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Qing H, Min-Na D, Hong-Yan Q, Xiang-Ming X, Guo-Qiang Z, Min Y (2007) Detection, isolation, and identi cation of cadmium–resistant bacteria based on PCR–DGGE. J Environ Sci 19:1114–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ranjard L, Echairi A, Nowak V, Lejon D, Nouaim R, Chaussod R (2006) Field and microcosm experiments to evaluate the effects of agricultural Cu treatment on the density and genetic structure of microbial communities in two different soils. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 58:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruiz-Barba JL, Maldonado A, Jiménez-Díaz R (2005) Small–scale total DNA extraction from bacteria and yeast for PCR applications. Anal Biochem 347:333–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saranya K, Sundaramanickam A, Shekhar S, Swaminathan S, Balasubramanian T (2017) Bioremediation of mercury by Vibrio fluvialis screened from industrial effluents. BioMed Res Int, Article ID 6509648, 6 pages. https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6509648
  40. Schmeisser C, Steele H, Streit WR (2007) Metagenomics, biotechnology with non–culturable microbes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 75:955–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Signes-Pastor AJ, Carey M, Vioque J, Navarrete-Mun˜oz EM, Rodrıguez-Dehli C, Tardon A, Begon˜a-Zubero M, Santa-Marina L, Vrijheid M, Casas M, Llop S, Gonzalez-Palacios S, Meharg AA (2017) Urinary arsenic speciation in children and pregnant women from Spain. Expo Health 9:105–111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-016-0225-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh PK, Singh AL, Kumar A, Singh MP (2012) Mixed bacterial consortium as an emerging tool to remove hazardous trace metals from coal. Fuel 102:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sinha A, Pant KK, Khare SK (2012) Studies on mercury bioremediation by alginate immobilized mercury tolerant Bacillus cereus cells. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 71:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smalla K, Oros-Sichler M, Milling A, Heuer H, Baumgarte S, Becker R, Neuber G, Kropf S, Ulrich A, Tebbe CC (2007) Bacterial diversity of soils assessed by DGGE, T-RFLP and SSCP fingerprints of PCR–amplified 16S rRNA gene fragments: do the different methods provide similar results? J Microbiol Methods 69(3):470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Streit WR, Schmitz RA (2004) Metagenomics—the key to the uncultured microbes. Curr Opin Microbiol 7:492–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Torsvik V, Ovreas L (2002) Microbial diversity and function in soil: from genes to ecosystems. Curr Opin Microbiol 5:240–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Umar AF, Tahir F, Agbo EB (2017) Polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR–DGGE) profile of bacterial community from agricultural soils in Bauchi, North-East Nigeria. Adv Microbiol 7:480–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang Y, Shi J, Wang H, Lin Q, Chen X, Chen Y (2007) The influence of soil heavy metals pollution on soil microbial biomass, enzyme activity, and community composition near a copper smelter. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 67:75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watts MP, Khijniak TV, Boothman C, Lloyd JR (2015) Treatment of alkaline Cr(VI)-contaminated leachate with an alkaliphilic metal-reducing bacterium. Appl Environ Microbiol 81(16): eScholarID:268368Google Scholar
  50. Wei G, Fan L, Zhu W, Fu Y, Yu J, Tang M (2009) Isolation and characterization of the heavy metal resistant bacteria CCNWRS33–2 isolated from root nodule of Lepedeza cuneata in gold mine tailings in China. J Hazard Mater 162:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yao X-F, Zhang J-M, Tian L, Guob J-H (2017) The effect of heavy metal contamination on the bacterial community structure at Jiaozhou Bay, China. Braz J Microbiol 48:71–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2016.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Joint Center on Global Change and Earth System Science of the University of Maryland and Beijing Normal University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jatindra N. Bhakta
    • 1
  • Susmita Lahiri
    • 1
  • Feroze A. Bhuiyna
    • 2
  • Md. Rokunuzzaaman
    • 2
  • Kouhei Ohonishi
    • 2
  • Kozo Iwasaki
    • 3
  • Bana B. Jana
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecological Studies & International Centre for Ecological EngineeringUniversity of KalyaniKalyaniIndia
  2. 2.Research Institute of Molecular Genetics, Faculty of AgricultureKochi UniversityNankokuJapan
  3. 3.Life and Environmental Medical Science Cluster, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of KochiNankokuJapan

Personalised recommendations