2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Effects of Sulfate Reduction on Trichloroethene Dechlorination by Dehalococcoides-Containing Microbial Communities

      , ,
      Applied and Environmental Microbiology
      American Society for Microbiology

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          In order to elucidate interactions between sulfate reduction and dechlorination, we systematically evaluated the effects of different concentrations of sulfate and sulfide on reductive dechlorination by isolates, constructed consortia, and enrichments containing Dehalococcoides sp. Sulfate (up to 5 mM) did not inhibit the growth or metabolism of pure cultures of the dechlorinator Dehalococcoides mccartyi 195, the sulfate reducer Desulfovibrio vulgaris Hildenborough, or the syntroph Syntrophomonas wolfei . In contrast, sulfide at 5 mM exhibited inhibitory effects on growth of the sulfate reducer and the syntroph, as well as on both dechlorination and growth rates of D. mccartyi . Transcriptomic analysis of D. mccartyi 195 revealed that genes encoding ATP synthase, biosynthesis, and Hym hydrogenase were downregulated during sulfide inhibition, whereas genes encoding metal-containing enzymes involved in energy metabolism were upregulated even though the activity of those enzymes (hydrogenases) was inhibited. When the electron acceptor (trichloroethene) was limiting and an electron donor (lactate) was provided in excess to cocultures and enrichments, high sulfate concentrations (5 mM) inhibited reductive dechlorination due to the toxicity of generated sulfide. The initial cell ratio of sulfate reducers to D. mccartyi (1:3, 1:1, or 3:1) did not affect the dechlorination performance in the presence of sulfate (2 and 5 mM). In contrast, under electron donor limitation, dechlorination was not affected by sulfate amendments due to low sulfide production, demonstrating that D. mccartyi can function effectively in anaerobic microbial communities containing moderate sulfate concentrations (5 mM), likely due to its ability to outcompete other hydrogen-consuming bacteria and archaea.

          IMPORTANCE Sulfate is common in subsurface environments and has been reported as a cocontaminant with chlorinated solvents at various concentrations. Inconsistent results for the effects of sulfate inhibition on the performance of dechlorination enrichment cultures have been reported in the literature. These inconsistent findings make it difficult to understand potential mechanisms of sulfate inhibition and complicate the interpretation of bioremediation field data. In order to elucidate interactions between sulfate reduction and reductive dechlorination, this study systematically evaluated the effects of different concentrations of sulfate and sulfide on reductive dechlorination by isolates, constructed consortia, and enrichments containing Dehalococcoides sp. This study provides a more fundamental understanding of the competition mechanisms between reductive dechlorination by Dehalococcoides mccartyi and sulfate reduction during the bioremediation process. It also provides insights on the significance of sulfate concentrations on reductive dechlorination under electron donor/acceptor-limiting conditions during in situ bioremediation applications. For example, at a trichloroethene-contaminated site with a high sulfate concentration, proper slow-releasing electron donors can be selected to generate an electron donor-limiting environment that favors reductive dechlorination and minimizes the sulfide inhibition effect.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review.

          Anaerobic digestion is an attractive waste treatment practice in which both pollution control and energy recovery can be achieved. Many agricultural and industrial wastes are ideal candidates for anaerobic digestion because they contain high levels of easily biodegradable materials. Problems such as low methane yield and process instability are often encountered in anaerobic digestion, preventing this technique from being widely applied. A wide variety of inhibitory substances are the primary cause of anaerobic digester upset or failure since they are present in substantial concentrations in wastes. Considerable research efforts have been made to identify the mechanism and the controlling factors of inhibition. This review provides a detailed summary of the research conducted on the inhibition of anaerobic processes. The inhibitors commonly present in anaerobic digesters include ammonia, sulfide, light metal ions, heavy metals, and organics. Due to the difference in anaerobic inocula, waste composition, and experimental methods and conditions, literature results on inhibition caused by specific toxicants vary widely. Co-digestion with other waste, adaptation of microorganisms to inhibitory substances, and incorporation of methods to remove or counteract toxicants before anaerobic digestion can significantly improve the waste treatment efficiency.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Hydrogen concentrations as an indicator of the predominant terminal electron-accepting reactions in aquatic sediments

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Molecular mechanisms of hydrogen sulfide toxicity.

              The toxicity of H2S has been attributed to its ability to inhibit cytochrome c oxidase in a similar manner to HCN. However, the successful use of methemoglobin for the treatment of HCN poisoning was not successful for H2S poisonings even though the ferric heme group of methemoglobin scavenges H2S. Thus, we speculated that other mechanisms contribute to H2S induced cytotoxicity. Experimental procedure. Hepatocyte isolation and viability and enzyme activities were measured as described by Moldeus et al. (1978), and Steen et al. (2001). Incubation of isolated hepatocytes with NaHS solutions (a H2S source) resulted in glutathione (GSH) depletion. Moreover, GSH depletion was also observed in TRIS-HCl buffer (pH 6.0) treated with NaHS. Several ferric chelators (desferoxamime and DETAPAC) and antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase [SOD] and catalase) prevented cell-free and hepatocyte GSH depletion. GSH-depleted hepatocytes were very susceptible to NaHS cytotoxicity, indicating that GSH detoxified NaHS or H2S in cells. Cytotoxicity was also partly prevented by desferoxamine and DETAPC, but it was increased by ferric EDTA or EDTA. Cell-free oxygen consumption experiments in TRIS-HCl buffer showed that NaHS autoxidation formed hydrogen peroxide and was prevented by DETAPC but increased by EDTA. We hypothesize that H2S can reduce intracellular bound ferric iron to form unbound ferrous iron, which activates iron. Additionally, H2S can increase the hepatocyte formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (known to occur with electron transport chain). H2S cytotoxicity therefore also involves a reactive sulfur species, which depletes GSH and activates oxygen to form ROS.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Applied and Environmental Microbiology
                Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
                American Society for Microbiology
                0099-2240
                1098-5336
                March 31 2017
                April 15 2017
                April 15 2017
                February 03 2017
                : 83
                : 8
                Article
                10.1128/AEM.03384-16
                5377507
                28159790
                8347fb3e-4afc-43f1-9862-f3c5154f50b7
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article