A metagenomic study of the microbial communities in four parallel biogas reactors

Biotechnology for Biofuels

Linn Solli³  Othilde Elise Håvelsrud⁴  Svein Jarle Horn²  Anne Gunn Rike¹ 

[1] Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Sognsveien 72, Oslo, N-0806, Norway

[2] Department of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, ᅟ, N-1432, Ås, Norway

[3] Bioforsk, Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research, Frederik A. Dahls vei 20, ᅟ, 1432 Ås, Norway

[4] Department of Microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, Nydalen, Oslo, 0424, Norway

关键词: Methane;    Biorefinery;    Biofuel;    Taxonomic structure;    Biogas;    Metagenomic;    Syntrophic oxidation;    Anaerobic digestion;   

Others  :  1084384
DOI  :  10.1186/s13068-014-0146-2

 received in 2014-06-13, accepted in 2014-09-22,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Biogas is a renewable energy carrier which is used for heat and power production or, in the form of purified methane, as a vehicle fuel. The formation of methane from organic materials is carried out by a mixed microbial community under anaerobic conditions. However, details about the microbes involved and their function are limited. In this study we compare the metagenomes of four parallel biogas reactors digesting a protein-rich substrate, relate microbiology to biogas performance, and observe differences in these reactors’ microbial communities compared to the original inoculum culture.

Results

The biogas process performance during the startup phase of four parallel continuous stirred tank reactors (designated R1, R2, R3, and R4) co-digesting fish waste and cow manure was studied. The microbial composition of the inoculum (day 0) and the four reactors at day 59 was studied and compared using 454 FLX Titanium pyrosequencing. In the inoculum and the reactor samples, the Bacteria Clostridium and Syntrophomonas were highly abundant, and the dominating methanogen was the hydrogenotrophic Methanoculleus. Syntrophic prokaryotes frequently found in biogas reactors with high concentrations of ammonium and volatile fatty acids were detected in all samples. The species Candidatus Cloacimonas acidaminovorans of the candidate phylum Cloacimonetes (WWE1) increased in all reactors and was the dominating bacterium at day 59. In particular, this bacterium showed a very high abundance in R1, which distinguished this reactor significantly from the other reactors in terms of microbial composition. Methane production and the reactor slurry characteristics were monitored in the digestion period. Generally all four reactors operated stably and showed rather similar characteristics. The average methane production in the reactors varied between 0.278 and 0.296 L gVS^-1, with the lowest production in R1.

Conclusions

This study showed that four parallel reactors co-digesting manure and fish waste silage operated stably during a startup phase. Several important Archaea and Bacteria degrading the protein-rich substrate were identified. In particular, microorganisms involved in syntrophic methane production seemed to be important. The detailed characterization of the microbial communities presented in this work may be useful for the operation of biogas plants degrading substrates with high concentrations of proteins.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Solli et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Solli L, Bergersen O, Sørheim R, Briseid T: Effects of a gradually increased load of fish waste silage in co-digestion with cow manure on methane production. Waste Manage 2014, 34:1553-1559.
• [2][http://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/avfregno] webcite Statistics Norway. SSB. 2013.Avfallsregnskapet 2011..
• [3]Daniel SL, Drake HL: Oxalate- and glyoxylate-dependent growth and acetogenesis by Clostridium thermoaceticum. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993, 59:3062-3069.
• [4]Anderson I, Ulrich LE, Lupa B, Susanti D, Porat I, Hooper SD, Lykidis A, Sieprawska-Lupa M, Dharmarajan L, Goltsman E, Lapidus A, Saunders E, Han C, Land M, Lucas S, Mukhopadhyay B, Whitman WB, Woese C, Bristow J, Kyrpides N: Genomic characterization of methanomicrobiales reveals three classes of methanogens. PLoS One 2009, 4:6.
• [5]Zinder SH: Physiological ecology of methanogenesis. In Methanogenesis. Ecology, Physiology, Biochemistry and Genetics. Volume 1. 1st edition. Edited by Ferry JG. Chapman and Hall, New York; 1993:128-206.
• [6]Garcia JL, Patel BKC, Ollivier B: Taxonomic, phylogenetic and ecological diversity of methanogenic Archaea. Anaerobe 2000, 6:105-226.
• [7]Liu Y, Whitman WB: Metabolic, phylogenetic, and eclogical diversity of the methanogenic Archaea. Annu N Y Acad Sci 2008, 1125:171-189.
• [8]Schnurer A, Zellner G, Svensson BH: Mesophilic syntrophic acetate oxidation during methane formation in biogas reactors. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1999, 29:249-261.
• [9]Schnurer A, Nordberg Å: Ammonia, a selective agent for methane production by syntrophic acetate oxidation at mesophilic temperature. Water Sci Technol 2008, 57:735-740.
• [10]Westerholm M, Dolfing J, Sherry A, Grey ND, Head IM, Schnurer A: Quantification of syntrophic acetate oxidizing microbial communities in biogas process. Environ Microbiol Reports 2011, 3:500-505.
• [11]Westerholm M, Muller B, Arthurson V, Schnurer A: Changes in the acetogenic population in a mesophilic anaerobic digester in response to increasing ammonia concentration.J. Microbes Environ 2011, 26:347-353.
• [12]Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS: Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review. Bioresource Technol 2008, 99:4044-4064.
• [13]Pandey PK, Ndegwa PM, Soupir ML, Alldrege RJ, Pitts MJ: Efficacies of inocula on the startup of anaerobic reactors treating dairy manure under stirred and unstirred conditions. Biomass Bioenerg 2011, 35:2705-2720.
• [14]Demirel B, Yenigun O: Two-phase anaerobic digestion process: a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2002, 77:743-755.
• [15]Weiland P: Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biot 2010, 85:849-860.
• [16]Harmsen HJN, Kengen HMP, Akkermans ADL: Detection and localization of syntrophic propionate-oxidizing bacteria in granular sludge by in situ hybridization using 16 s rRNA-based oligonucleotide probes. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996, 62:1656-1663.
• [17]Amani T, Nosrati M, Mousavi SM, Kermanshahi RK: Analysis of the syntrophic anaerobic digestion of volatile fatty acids using enriched cultures in a fixed-bed reactor. Water Environ Res 2012, 84:460-472.
• [18]Nielsen HB, Angelidaki I: Strategies for optimizing recovery of the biogas process following ammonia inhibition. Bioresource Technol 2007, 99:7995-8001.
• [19]Angelidaki I, Ahring BK: Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of livestock waste: the effect of ammonia. Appl Microbiol Biot 1993, 38:560-564.
• [20]Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L, Ahring BK: A mathematical model for dynamic simulation of anaerobic digestion of complex substrates: focusing on ammonia inhibition. Biotechnol Bioeng 2004, 42:159-166.
• [21]Yen HW, Brune DE: Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and waste paper to produce methane. Bioresource Technol 2007, 98:130-134.
• [22]Angelidaki I, Ahring BK: Effects of free long-chain fatty acids on thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Appl Microbiol Biot 1992, 37:808-812.
• [23]Biebl H: Fermentation of glycerol byClostridium pasteurianum- batch and continuous culture studies. J Ind Microbiol Microbiot 2001, 27:18-26.
• [24]El-Mashad HM, Zhang R: Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresourse Technol 2010, 101:4021-4028.
• [25]Chen G, Zheng Z, Yang S, Fang C, Zou X, Zhang J: Improving conversion ofSpartina alterniflorainto biogas by co-digestion with cow feces. Fuel Process Technol 2010, 91:1416-1421.
• [26]Lehtomaki A, Huttunen S, Rintala JA: Laboratory investigations of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: effect of crop to manure ratio. Resour Conserv Recy 2007, 51:591-609.
• [27]Regueiro L, Veiga P, Figueroa M, Alonso-Gutierrez J, Stams AJM, Lema JM, Carballa M: Relationship between microbial activity and microbial community structure in six full-scale anaerobic digesters. Microbiol Res 2012, 167:581-589.
• [28]Ike M, Inoue D, Miyano T, Liu TT, Sei K, Soda S, Kadoshin S: Microbial population dynamics during startup of a full-scale anaerobic digester treating industrial food waste in Koyoto eco-energy project. Bioresource Technol 2010, 101:3952-3957.
• [29]Van Velsen AFM: Adaptation of methanogenic sludge to high ammonia-nitrogen concentrations. Water Res 1979, 13:995-999.
• [30]Griffin ME, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L: Methanogenic population dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters treating municipal solid waste and biosolids. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998, 57:342-355.
• [31]Raposo F, Borja R, Martín MA, Martín A, de la Rubia MA, Rincón B: Influence of inoculum to substrate ratio on the anaerobic digestion of sunflower oil cake in batch mode: process stability and kinetic evaluation. Chem Eng J 2009, 149:70-77.
• [32]Lins P, Reitschuler C, Illmer P: Development and evaluation of inocula combating high acetate concentrations during the start-up of an anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technol 2012, 110:167-173.
• [33]Hansen KH, Angelidaki I, Ahring BK: Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Water Res 1998, 32:5-12.
• [34]Hashimoto AG: Ammonia inhibition of methanogenesis from cattle wastes. Agric Wastes 1986, 17:241-261.
• [35]Ma J, Carballa M, De Caveye PV, Verstraete W: Enhanced propionic acid degradation (EPAD) system: Proof of principle and feasibility. Water Res 2009, 43:3239-3248.
• [36]Gallert C, Winter J: Propionic acid accumulation and degradation during restart of a full scale anaerobic biowaste digester. Bioresource Technol 2008, 99:170-178.
• [37]Raes J, Korbel JO, Lercher MJ, vor Mering C, Bork P: Prediction of effective genome size in metagenomic samples. Genome Biol 2007, 8:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Wirth R, Kovacs E, Maróti G, Bagi Z, Rakhely G, Kovacs KL: Characterization of a biogas producing microbial community by short read next generation DNA sequencing. Biotechnol Biofuels 2012, 5:1-16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [39]Krause L, Diaz NN, Edwards RA, Gartemann K-H, Krömeke H, Neuwger H, Pühler A, Runte KJ, Schlüter A, Stoye J, Szczepanowski R, Tauch A, Goesmann A: Taxonomic composition and gene content of a methaneproducing microbial community isolated from a biogas reactor. J Biotech 2008, 136:91-101.
• [40]Sundberg C, Al-Soud WA, Larsson M, Alm E, Yekta SS, Svensson BH, Sørensen SJ, Karlsson A: 454 pyrosequencing analyses of bacterial and archaeal richness in 21 full-scale biogas digesters. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2013, 85:612-626.
• [41]Li A, Chu YN, Wang X, Ren L, Yu J, Liu X, Yan J, Zhang L: A pyrosequencing-based metagenomic study of methane-producing microbial community in solid-state biogas reactor. Biotechnol Biofuels 2013, 6:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Klocke M, Mähnerta P, Mundt K, Souidia K, Linke B: Microbial community analysis of a biogas-producing completely stirred tank reactor fed continuously with fodder beet silage as mono-substrate. Syst Appl Microbiol 2007, 30:139-151.
• [43]Rinke C, Schwientek P, Sczyrba A, Ivanova NN, Anderson IJ, Cheng J-F, Darling A, Malfatti S, Swan BK, Gies EA, Dodsworth JA, Hedlund BP, Tsiamis G, Sievert SM, Liu W-T, Eisen JA, Hallam SJ, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Rubin EM, Hugenholtz P, Woyke T: Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature 2013, 499:431-437.
• [44]Li YF, Chen PH, Yu Z: Spatial and temporal variations of microbial community in a mixed plug-flow loop reactor fed with dairy manure.Microbial Biotechnol 2014. doi:10.1111/1751-7915.12125.
• [45]Pelletier E, Kreymeyer A, Bocs S, Rouy Z, Gyapay G, Chouari R, Riviere D, Ganesan A, Daegelen P, Sghir A, Cohen GN, Medigue C, Weissenbach J, Paslier DL: “Candidatus Cloacamonas acidaminovorans”: genome sequence reconstruction provides a first glimpse of a new bacterial division. J Bacteriol 2008, 190:2572-2579.
• [46]Zakrzewski M, Goesmann A, Jaenicke S, Junemann S, Eikmeyer F, Szczepanowski R, Al-Soud WA, Sørensen S, Pühler A, Schluter A: Profiling the metabolically active community from a production scale biogas plant by means of high throughput metatranscriptome sequencing. J Biotechnol 2012, 158:248-258.
• [47]Schluter A, Bekel T, Diaz NN, Dondru M, Eichenlaub R, Gartemann KH, Krahn I, Krause L, Kromeke H, Kruse O, Mussgnug JH, Neuweger H, Niehaus K, Pühler A, Runte KJ, Szczepanowski R, Tauch A, Tilker A, Viehover P, Goesmann A: The metagenome of a biogas producing microbial community of a production scale biogas plant fermenter analyzed by the 454-pyrosequencing technology. J Biotechnol 2008, 136:77-90.
• [48]Kovács E, Wirth R, Maróti G, Bagi Z, Rákhely G, Kovács KL: Biogas production from protein-rich biomass: fed-batch anaerobic fermentation of casein and of pig blood and associated changes in microbial community composition. PLoS One 2013, 8:10.
• [49]McInerney MJ, Bryant MP, Hespell RB, Costerton JW: Syntrophomonas wolfeigen. nov. sp. nov., an anaerobic, syntrophic, fatty acid-oxidizing bacterium. Appl Environ Microbiol 1981, 41:1029-1039.
• [50]Sousa DZ, Smidt H, Alves M, Stams AJM: Ecophysiology of syntrophic communities that degrade saturated and unsaturated long-chain fatty acids. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2009, 68:257-272.
• [51]Scholten JCM, Conrad R: Energetics of syntrophic propionate oxidation in defined batch and chemostat cocultures. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000, 66:2934-2942.
• [52]Boone DR, Johnson RL, Liu Y: Diffusion of the interspecies electron carriers H(2) and formate in methanogenic ecosystems and its implications in the measurement of K(m) for H(2) or formate uptake. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989, 55:1735-1741.
• [53]Tabatabaeia M, Rahimc RA, Abdullahd N, Wrighte ADG, Shiraif Y, Sakaig K, Sulaimanh A, Hassan MA: Importance of the methanogenic Archaea populations in anaerobic wastewater treatments. Process Biochem 2010, 45:1214-1225.
• [54]Sun L, Müller B, Westerholm M, Schnürer A: Syntrophic acetate oxidation in industrial CSTR biogas digesters. J Biotechnol 2013, 171:39-44.
• [55]Karakashey D, Batstone DJ, Trably E, Angelidaki I: Acetate oxidation is the dominant methanogenic pathway from acetate in the absence of Methanosaetaceae. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006, 72:5138-5141.
• [56]Kröber M, Bekel T, Diaz NN, Goesmann A, Sebastian J: Phylogenetic characterization of a biogas plant microbial community integrating clone library 16S-rDNA sequences and metagenome sequence data obtained by 454-pyrosequencing. J Biotech 2009, 142:38-49.
• [57]Jaenicke S, Ander C, Bekel T, Bisdorf R, Dröge M, Gartemann K-H, Jünemann S, Kaiser O, Krause L, Tille F, Zakrzewski F, Pühler A, Schlüter A, Goesmann A: Comparative and joint analysis of two metagenomic datasets from a biogas fermenter obtained by 454-pyrosequencing. PLoS One 2011, 6:1.
• [58]Pilloni G, Granitsiotis MS, Engel M, Lueders T: Testing the limits of 454 pyrotag sequencing: reproducibility. Quantitative assessment and comparison to T-RFLP fingerprinting of aquifer microbes. PLoS One 2012, 7:7.
• [59]ISO 11465: Soil quality. Determination of dry matter and water content on a mass basis. Gravimetric method. 1993.
• [60]NS-EN 15935: European Standard method for the determination of the loss on ignition (LOI) of dry matter at 550°C. 2012.
• [61]ISO 10390: Soil quality. Determination of pH.ᅟ 2005.
• [62][http://www.sequencing.uio.no] webcite Norwegian Sequencing Centre..
• [63]Schmieder R, Edwards R: Quality control and preprocessing of metagenomic datasets. Biogeosciences 2011, 27:863-864.
• [64]Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, Sahl JW, Stres B, Thallinger GG, Van Horn DJ, Weber CF: Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009, 75:7537-7541.
• [65]Niu BF, Fu LM, Sun SL, Li WZ: Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data. BMC Bioinformat 2010, 11:187-198. BioMed Central Full Text
• [66][http://www.mn.uio.no/ibv/bioportal/index.html] webcite BIOPORTAL.UIO.NO..
• [67][http://string-db.org/] webcite STRING - Known and Predicted Protein-Protein Interactions..
• [68]Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ: Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990, 215:403-410.
• [69]Beszteri B, Temperton B, Frickenhaus S, Giovannoni SJ: Average genome size: a potential source of bias in comparative metagenomics. ISME J 2010, 4:1075-1077.
• [70]Huson DH, Auch AF, Qi J, Schuster SC: MEGAN analysis of metagenomic data. Genome Res 2007, 17:377-386.
• [71]Huson DH, Mitra S, Ruscheweyh HJ, Weber N, Schuster SC: Integrative analysis of environmental sequences using MEGAN4. Genome Res 2011, 21:1552-1560.
• [72][http://www.r-project.org] webcite The R Project for Statistical Computing..
• [73]Havelsrud OE, Haverkamp THA, Kristensen T, Jakobsen K, Rike AG: Metagenomic and geochemical characterization of pockmarked sediments overlaying the troll petroleum reservoir in the North Sea. BMC Microbiol 2012, 12:203. BioMed Central Full Text
• [74]Meyer F, Paarmann D, D'Souza M, Olson R, Glass EM, Kubal M, Paczian T, Rodriguez A, Stevens R, Wilke A, Wilkening J, Edwards RA: The metagenomics RAST server - a public resource for the automatic phylogenetic and functional analysis of metagenomes. BMC Bioinformat 2008, 9:386. BioMed Central Full Text
• [75][http://metagenomics.anl.gov/] webcite MG-RAST. Metagenomic Analysis Server..