Skip to main content
Log in

Competition between sulfate-reducing and methanogenic bacteria for H2 under resting and growing conditions

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Archives of Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The basis for the outcome of competition between sulfidogens and methanogens for H2 was examined by comparing the kinetic parameters of representatives of each group separately and in co-culture. Michaelis-Menten parameters (V max and K m) for four methanogens and five sulfate-reducing bacteria were determined from H2-depletion data. Further, Monod growth parameters (μmax, K s, Y H2) for Desulfovibrio sp. G11 and Methanospirillum hungatei JF-1 were similarly estimated. H2 K m values for the methanogenic bacteria ranged from 2.5 μM (Methanospirillum PM1) to 13 μM for Methanosarcina barkeri MS; Methanospirillum hungatei JF-1 and Methanobacterium PM2 had intermediate H2 K m estimates of 5 μM. Average H2 K m estimates for the five sulfidogens was 1.2 μM. No consistent difference among the V max estimates for the above sulfidogens (mean=100 nmol H2 min-1 mg-1 protein) and methanogens (mean=110 nmol H2 min-1 mg-1 protein) was found. A two-term Michaelis-Menten equation accurately predicted the apparent H2 K m values and the fate of H2 by resting co-cultures of sulfate-reducers and methanogens. Half-saturation coefficients (K s) for H2-limited growth of Desulfovibrio sp. G11 (2–4 μM) and Methanospirillum JF-1 (6–7 μM) were comparable to H2 K m estimates obtained for these organisms. Maximum specific growth rates for Desulfovibrio sp. G11 (0.05 h-1) were similar to those of Methanospirillum JF-1 (0.05–0.06 h-1); whereas G11 had an average yield coefficient 4 x that of JF-1. Calculated μmax and V max/K m values for the methanogens and sulfidogens studied predict that the latter bacterial group will process more H2 whether these organisms are in a growing or resting state, when the H2 concentration is in the first-order region.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abram JW, Nedwell DB (1978a) Inhibition of methanogenesis by sulfate-reducing bacteria competing for transferred hydrogen. Arch Microbiol 117:89–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Abram JW, Nedwell DB (1978b) Hydrogen as a substrate for methanogenesis and sulfate reduction in anaerobic saltmarsh sediment. Arch Microbiol 117:93–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Badziong W, Thauer RK, Zeikus JG (1978) Isolation and characterization of Desulfovibrio growing on hydrogen plus sulfate as the sole energy source. Arch Microbiol 116:41–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Balch WE, Fox GE, Magrum LJ, Woese CR, Wolfe RS (1979) Methanogens: Reevaluation of a unique biological group. Microbiol Rev 43:260–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck JV, Arnold KJ (1977) Parameter estimation in engineering and science. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant MP, Campbell LL, Reddy CA, Crabill MR (1977) Growth of Desulfovibrio in lactate or ethanol media low in sulfate in association with H2-utilizing methanogenic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 33:1162–1169

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappenberg TE (1974) Interrelationships between sulfate-reducing and methane-producing bacteria in bottom deposits in a fresh-water lake. I. Field observations. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek J Microbiol Serol 40:285–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish-Bowden A (1976) Principles of enzyme kinetics. Butterworths, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Duggleby RG, Morrison JF (1977) The analysis of progress curves for enzyme-catalyzed reactions by non-linear regression. Biochim Biophys Acta 481:297–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschal JC, Thingstad TF (1982) Mathematical description of competition between two and three bacterial species under dual substrate limitation: A comparison with experimental data. Biotechnol Bioengin 24:1403–1418

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy FP (1980) Slope of Monod equation as an indicator of advantage in nutrient competition. Microbial Ecol 5:281–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungate RE (1968) A roll tube method for cultivation of strict anaerobes. In: Norris JR, Ribbons DW (eds) Methods in microbiology, vol 3B. Academic Press, New York, pp 117–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungate RE, Smith W, Bauchop T Yu, Rabinowitz JC (1970) Formate as an intermediate in the bovine rumen fermentation. J Bacteriol 102:389–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen BB (1980) Mineralization and the bacterial cycling of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in marine sediments. In: Ellwood DC, Hedger JN, Latham MJ, Lynch JM, Slater JH (eds) Contemporary microbial ecology. Academic Press, New York, pp 239–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristjansson JR, Schonheit P, Thauer RK (1982) Different K2 values for hydrogen of methanogenic bacteria and sulfate-reducing bacteria: An explanation for the apparent inhibition of methanogenesis by sulfate. Arch Microbiol 131:278–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovley DR, Klug MJ (1983) Methanogenesis from methanol and methylamines and acetogenesis from hydrogen and carbon dioxide in the sediments of a eutrophic lake. Appl Environ Microbiol 45:1310–1315

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovley DR, Dwyer D, Klug MJ (1982) Kinetic analysis of competition between sulfate reducers and methanogens for hydrogen in sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 43:1373–1379

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney MJ, Bryant MP, Pfennig N (1979) Anaerobic bacterium that degrades fatty acids in syntrophic association with methanogens. Arch Microbiol 122:129–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimmo IA, Atkins GL (1974) A comparison of two methods for fitting the integrated Michaelis-Menten equation. Biochem J 141:913–914

    Google Scholar 

  • Oremland R, Polcin S (1982) Methanogenesis and sulfate reduction: competitive and non-competitive substrates in estuarine sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 44:1270–1276

    Google Scholar 

  • Oremland RS, Taylor BF (1978) Sulfate reduction and methanogenesis in marine sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 42:209–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachmayr F (1960) Vorkommen und Bestimmung von Schwefelverbindungen in Mineralwasser. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Munich

  • Postgate JR (1982) The sulphate-reducing bacteria. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell EO (1967) The growth rate of microorganisms as a function of substrate concentration. In: Powell EO, Evans CGT, Strange RE, Tempest DW (eds) Microbial physiology and continuous culture. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, pp 34–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JA (1982) Kinetics of hydrogen consumption by methanogenic consortia and hydrogen-consuming anaerobes. Ph. D. Thesis, Mich. State Univ

  • Robinson JA, Tiedje JM (1983) Nonlinear estimation of Monod growth kinetic parameters from a single substrate depletion curve. Appl Environ Microbiol 45:1453–1458

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JA, Tiedje JM (1982) Kinetics of hydrogen consumption by rumen fluid, anaerobic digestor sludge and sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol 44:1374–1384

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer NL, Ferry JG (1980) Metabolism of formate in Methanobacterium formicicum. J Bacteriol 142:800–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer NL, Brown DP, Ferry JG (1982) Kinetics of formate metabolism in Methanobacterium formicicum and Methanospirillum hungatei. Appl Environ Microbiol 44:549–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonheit P, Moll J, Thauer RK (1980) Growth parameters (K m, μmax, Y m) of Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum. Arch Microbiol 127:59–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Strayer RF, Tiedje JM (1978) Kinetic parameters of the conversion of methane precursors to methane in hypereutrophic lake sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol 36:330–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumm W, Morgan JJ (1981) Aquatic chemistry, an introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural waters, 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thauer RK, Jungermann K, Decker K (1977) Energy conservation in chemotrophic anaerobic bacteria. Bacteriol Rev 41:100–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedje JM, Sexstone AJ, Myrold DD, Robinson JA (1983) Denitrification: Ecological niches, competition and survival. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek J Microbiol Serol 48:569–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward DM, Olson GJ (1980) Terminal processes in the anaerobic degradation of an algal-bacterial mat in a high-sulfate hot spring. Appl Environ Microbiol 40:67–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm E, Battino R, Wilcock RJ (1977) Low-pressure solubility of gases in liquid water. Chem Rev 77:219–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfrey MR, Ward DM (1983) Substrates for sulfate reduction and methane production in intertidal sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 45:193–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfrey MR, Zeikus JG (1977) Effect of sulfate on carbon and electron flow during microbial methanogenesis in freshwater sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 33:275–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood WA (1981) Physical methods. In: Gerhardt P (ed) Manual of methods for general bacteriology. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, p 358

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehnder AJB (1978) Ecology of methane formation. In: Mitchell R (ed) Water pollution microbiology, vol 2. John Wiley, New York, pp 349–376

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robinson, J.A., Tiedje, J.M. Competition between sulfate-reducing and methanogenic bacteria for H2 under resting and growing conditions. Arch. Microbiol. 137, 26–32 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00425803

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00425803

Key words

Navigation