Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

The Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology (한국미생물·생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Determination and Variation of Core Bacterial Community in a Two-Stage Full-Scale Anaerobic Reactor Treating High-Strength Pharmaceutical Wastewater

  • Ma, Haijun (State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University) ;
  • Ye, Lin (State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University) ;
  • Hu, Haidong (State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University) ;
  • Zhang, Lulu (State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University) ;
  • Ding, Lili (State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University) ;
  • Ren, Hongqiang (State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University)
  • Received : 2017.07.12
  • Accepted : 2017.08.23
  • Published : 2017.10.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Knowledge on the functional characteristics and temporal variation of anaerobic bacterial populations is important for better understanding of the microbial process of two-stage anaerobic reactors. However, owing to the high diversity of anaerobic bacteria, close attention should be prioritized to the frequently abundant bacteria that were defined as core bacteria and putatively functionally important. In this study, using MiSeq sequencing technology, the core bacterial community of 98 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) was determined in a two-stage upflow blanket filter reactor treating pharmaceutical wastewater. The core bacterial community accounted for 61.66% of the total sequences and accurately predicted the sample location in the principal coordinates analysis scatter plot as the total bacterial OTUs did. The core bacterial community in the first-stage (FS) and second-stage (SS) reactors were generally distinct, in that the FS core bacterial community was indicated to be more related to a higher-level fermentation process, and the SS core bacterial community contained more microbes in syntrophic cooperation with methanogens. Moreover, the different responses of the FS and SS core bacterial communities to the temperature shock and influent disturbance caused by solid contamination were fully investigated. Co-occurring analysis at the Order level implied that Bacteroidales, Selenomonadales, Anaerolineales, Syneristales, and Thermotogales might play key roles in anaerobic digestion due to their high abundance and tight correlation with other microbes. These findings advance our knowledge about the core bacterial community and its temporal variability for future comparative research and improvement of the two-stage anaerobic system operation.

Keywords

References

  1. van Lier JB, van der Zee FP, Frijters CTMJ, Ersahin ME. 2015. Celebrating 40 years anaerobic sludge bed reactors for industrial wastewater treatment. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 14: 681-702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9375-5
  2. Briones A, Raskin L. 2003. Diversity and dynamics of microbial communities in engineered environments and their implications for process stability. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 14: 270-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-1669(03)00065-X
  3. Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 99: 4044-4064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.057
  4. Maspolim Y, Zhou Y, Guo C, Xiao K, Ng WJ. 2015. Determination of the archaeal and bacterial communities in two-phase and single-stage anaerobic systems by 454 pyrosequencing. J. Environ. Sci. 36: 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.02.017
  5. Schievano A, Tenca A, Scaglia B, Merlino G, Rizzi A, et al. 2012. Two-stage vs single-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion: comparison of energy production and biodegradation efficiencies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46: 8502-8510. https://doi.org/10.1021/es301376n
  6. Kongjan P, O-Thong S, Angelidaki I. 2011. Performance and microbial community analysis of two-stage process with extreme thermophilic hydrogen and thermophilic methane production from hydrolysate in UASB reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 102: 4028-4035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.009
  7. Sundberg C, Al-Soud WA, Larsson M, Alm E, Yekta SS, Svensson BH, et al. 2013. 454 Pyrosequencing analyses of bacterial and archaeal richness in 21 full-scale biogas digesters. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 85: 612-626. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6941.12148
  8. Gonzalez-Estrella J, Sierra-Alvarez R, Field JA. 2013. Toxicity assessment of inorganic nanoparticles to acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic methanogenic activity in anaerobic granular sludge. J. Hazard. Mater. 260: 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.05.029
  9. Talbot G, Topp E, Palin MF, Masse DI. 2008. Evaluation of molecular methods used for establishing the interactions and functions of microorganisms in anaerobic bioreactors. Water Res. 42: 513-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.08.003
  10. Rademacher A, Nolte C, Schoenberg M, Klocke M. 2012. Temperature increases from 55 to $75^{\circ}C$ in a two-phase biogas reactor result in fundamental alterations within the bacterial and archaeal community structure. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 96: 565-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4348-x
  11. Vanwonterghem I, Jensen PD, Ho DP, Batstone DJ, Tyson GW. 2014. Linking microbial community structure, interactions and function in anaerobic digesters using new molecular techniques. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 27: 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.11.004
  12. Abendroth C, Vilanova C, Guenther T, Luschnig O, Porcar M. 2015. Eubacteria and archaea communities in seven mesophile anaerobic digester plants in Germany. Biotechnol. Biofuels 8: 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-015-0271-6
  13. Nelson MC, Morrison M, Yu Z. 2011. A meta-analysis of the microbial diversity observed in anaerobic digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 102: 3730-3739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.119
  14. Werner JJ, Knights D, Garcia ML, Scalfone NB, Smith S, Yarasheski K, et al. 2011. Bacterial community structures are unique and resilient in full-scale bioenergy systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 4158-4163. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015676108
  15. Zhang T, Shao MF, Ye L. 2012. 454 Pyrosequencing reveals bacterial diversity of activated sludge from 14 sewage treatment plants. ISME J. 6: 1137-1147. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.188
  16. Nielsen PH. 2015. The activated sludge ecosystem contains a core community of abundant organisms. ISME J. 10: 11-20.
  17. Riviere D, Desvignes V, Pelletier E, Chaussonnerie S, Guermazi S, Weissenbach J, et al. 2009. Towards the definition of a core of microorganisms involved in anaerobic digestion of sludge. ISME J. 3: 700-714. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2009.2
  18. Lee S-H, Kang H-J, Lee YH, Lee TJ, Han K, Choi Y, et al. 2012. Monitoring bacterial community structure and variability in time scale in full-scale anaerobic digesters. J. Environ. Monit. 14: 1893-1905. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2em10958a
  19. de los Reyes FL, Weaver JE, Wang L. 2015. A methodological framework for linking bioreactor function to microbial communities and environmental conditions. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 33: 112-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2015.02.002
  20. APHA/AWWA/WEF. 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association, and the Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC.
  21. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, et al. 2009. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75: 7537-7541. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01541-09
  22. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for education and data analysis. Palaeontolia Electronica 4: 1-9.
  23. Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, et al. 2009. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 19: 1639-1645. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.092759.109
  24. Parks DH, Tyson GW, Hugenholtz P, Beiko RG. 2014. STAMP: statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profiles. Bioinformatics 30: 3123-3124. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu494
  25. Stone L, Roberts A. 1990. The checkerboard score and species distributions. Oecologia 85: 74-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317345
  26. Barberan A, Bates ST, Casamayor EO, Fierer N. 2012. Using network analysis to explore co-occurrence patterns in soil microbial communities. ISME J. 6: 343-351. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.119
  27. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. 2009. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks, pp. 361-362. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, North America, March 2009. Available at https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/09/paper/view/154/1009.
  28. Chen Z, Wang H, Chen Z, Ren N, Wang A, Shi Y, et al. 2011. Performance and model of a full-scale up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) to treat the pharmaceutical wastewater containing 6-APA and amoxicillin. J. Hazard. Mater. 185: 905-913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09.106
  29. Young JC, McCarty PL. 1969. The anaerobic filter for waste treatment. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. R160-R173.
  30. Wang C , Zuo J, Chen X, X ing W, X ing L, L i P, et al. 2014. Microbial community structures in an integrated two-phase anaerobic bioreactor fed by fruit vegetable wastes and wheat straw. J. Environ. Sci. 26: 2484-2492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2014.06.035
  31. Liang B, Wang L-Y, Mbadinga SM, Liu J-F, Yang S-Z, Gu JD, et al. 2015. Anaerolineaceae and Methanosaeta turned to be the dominant microorganisms in alkanes-dependent methanogenic culture after long-term of incubation. AMB Express 5: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-014-0092-1
  32. Hugenholtz P, Hooper SD, Kyrpides NC. 2009. Focus: Synergistetes. Environ. Microbiol. 11: 1327-1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01949.x
  33. Ariesyady HD, Ito T, Okabe S. 2007. Functional bacterial and archaeal community structures of major trophic groups in a full-scale anaerobic sludge digester. Water Res. 41: 1554-1568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.12.036
  34. Zhang Y, Wang X, Hu M, Li P. 2015. Effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the biodegradation of trichloroethylene wastewater and anaerobic bacterial community in the UASB reactor. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99: 1977-1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-6096-6
  35. Carballa M, Regueiro L, Lema JM. 2015. Microbial management of anaerobic digestion: exploiting the microbiome-functionality nexus. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 33: 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2015.01.008
  36. Shen P, Zhang J, Zhang J, Jiang C, Tang X, Li J, et al. 2013. Changes in microbial community structure in two anaerobic systems to treat bagasse spraying wastewater with and without addition of molasses alcohol wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 131: 333-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.147
  37. Lee C, Kim J , Chinalia FA, Shin SG, Hwang S. 2009. Unusual bacterial populations observed in a full-scale municipal sludge digester affected by intermittent seawater inputs. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 36: 769-773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-009-0557-4
  38. Shu D, He Y, Yue H , Wang Q . 2015. Microbial structures and community functions of anaerobic sludge in six fullscale wastewater treatment plants as revealed by 454 highthroughput pyrosequencing. Bioresour. Technol. 186: 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.072
  39. Chaffron S, Rehrauer H, Pernthaler J, von Mering C. 2010. A global network of coexisting microbes from environmental and whole-genome sequence data. Genome Res. 20: 947-959. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.104521.109
  40. Lee C, Kim J, Hwang K, O’Flaherty V, Hwang S. 2009. Quantitative analysis of methanogenic community dynamics in three anaerobic batch digesters treating different wastewaters. Water Res. 43: 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.09.032

Cited by

  1. Substrate-Induced Response in Biogas Process Performance and Microbial Community Relates Back to Inoculum Source vol.6, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6030080
  2. Characterization of bacterial and microbial eukaryotic communities associated with an ephemeral hypoxia event in Taihu Lake, a shallow eutrophic Chinese lake vol.25, pp.31, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2987-x
  3. Two- vs. single-stage anaerobic reactors: evaluation of effluent quality and energy production potential using sucrose-based wastewater vol.78, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2018.470
  4. Database Mining to Unravel the Ecology of the Phylum Chloroflexi in Methanogenic Full Scale Bioreactors vol.11, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.603234