Response of Propionate-Degrading Methanogenic Microbial Communities to Inhibitory Conditions
- 19 Downloads
Propionate is a crucial intermediate during methane fermentation. Investigating the effects of different kinds of inhibitors on the propionate-degrading microbial community is necessary to develop countermeasures for improving process stability. In the present study, under inhibitory conditions (acetate, propionate, sulfide, and ammonium addition), the dynamic changes of the propionate-degrading microbial community from a mesophilic chemostat fed with propionate as the sole carbon source were investigated using high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA. Sulfide and/or ammonia inhibited specific species in the microbial community. Compared with Syntrophobacter, Smithella was more resistant to inhibition by sulfide and/or ammonia. However, Syntrophobacter demonstrated greater tolerance than Smithella under acid inhibition conditions. Some genera that had close phylogenetic relationships and similar functions showed similar responses to different inhibitors.
KeywordsMethane fermentation Propionate degradation Ammonia inhibition Sulfide inhibition Microbial community
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2016YFE0127700) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51678378). This study was partly supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science with Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 17H05239, 18H01576 and 18H03367.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This paper does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 7.Parkin, G., Speece, R., Yang, C., & Kocher, W. (1983). Response of methane fermentation systems to industrial toxicants. Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation , 55(1), 44–53.Google Scholar
- 10.Barredo, M. S., & Evison, L. M. (1991). Effect of propionate toxicity on methanogen-enriched sludge, Methanobrevibacter smithii, and Methanospirillum hungatii at different pH values. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 57(6), 1764–1769.Google Scholar
- 15.Schink, B. (1997). Energetics of syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic degradation. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 61(2), 262–280.Google Scholar
- 19.Bremer, H., & Dennis, P. P. (1996). In Neidhardt et al. (Eds.), In Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium: cellular and molecular biology, chapter. 97: Modulation of Chemical Composition and Other Parameters of the Cell by Growth Rate (pp. 1553–1569).Google Scholar
- 20.Shigematsu, T., Tang, Y., Kawaguchi, H., Ninomiya, K., Kijima, J., Kobayashi, T., Morimura, S., & Kida, K. (2003). Effect of dilution rate on structure of a mesophilic acetate-degrading methanogenic community during continuous cultivation. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 96(6), 547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Griffiths, R. I., Whiteley, A. S., O'Donnell, A. G., & Bailey, M. J. (2000). Rapid method for coextraction of DNA and RNA from natural environments for analysis of ribosomal DNA-and rRNA-based microbial community composition. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66(12), 5488–5491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Parkin, G. F., Lynch, N. A., Kuo, W.-C., Van Keuren, E. L., & Bhattacharya, S. K. (1990). Interaction between sulfate reducers and methanogens fed acetate and propionate. Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 62, 780–788.Google Scholar