Unveiling the ecology, taxonomy and metabolic capabilities of MBA03, a potential key player in anaerobic digestion

Biogas, a mix of CO2, CH4 and small proportions of other gases, is a biofuel obtained by anaerobic digestion (AD). Biogas production is often considered a black box process, as the role and dynamics of some of the microorganisms involved remain undisclosed. Previous metataxonomic studies in the frame of the MICRO4BIOGAS project (www.micro4biogas.eu) revealed that MBA03, an uncharacterised and uncultured bacterial taxon, was very prevalent and abundant in industrial full-scale AD plants. Surprisingly, no culturable specimen or genome of this taxon has ever been reported, so its role in AD has remained unclear. In the present work, thirty samples derived from anaerobic digesters were sequenced, allowing the reconstruction of 108 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) potentially belonging to MBA03. According to phylogenetic analyses and genomic similarity indices, MBA03 constitutes a new bacterial order, proposed as Darwinibacteriales ord. nov., which includes Darwinibacter acetoxidans gen. nov., sp. nov. of the family Darwinibacteriaceae fam. nov., along with Wallacebacter cryptica gen. nov., sp. nov. of the Wallacebacteriaceae fam. nov. Ecotaxonomic studies determined that AD processes are the main ecological niche of Darwinibacteriales. Moreover, metabolic predictions identified Darwinibacteraceae members as putative syntrophic acetate oxidising bacteria (SAOB), as they encode for the reversed Wood-Ljungdahl (W-L) pathway coupled to the glycine cleavage system. This suggests that Darwinibacteraceae members work in collaboration with hydrogenotrophic archaea to produce methane in industrial biogas plants. Overall, our findings present Darwinibacteriales as a potential key player in anaerobic digestion and pave the way towards the complete characterisation of this newly described bacterial taxa.

[1]  P. He,et al.  Syntrophic Acetate-Oxidizing Microbial Consortia Enriched from Full-Scale Mesophilic Food Waste Anaerobic Digesters Showing High Biodiversity and Functional Redundancy , 2022, mSystems.

[2]  Christian J. A. Sigrist,et al.  Annotation of biologically relevant ligands in UniProtKB using ChEBI , 2022, bioRxiv.

[3]  Donovan H. Parks,et al.  GTDB-Tk v2: memory friendly classification with the genome taxonomy database , 2022, bioRxiv.

[4]  A. Schnürer,et al.  Serial anaerobic digestion improves protein degradation and biogas production from mixed food waste , 2022, Biomass and Bioenergy.

[5]  Laguillaumie Léa,et al.  Stability of ex situ biological methanation of H2/CO2 with a mixed microbial culture in a pilot scale bubble column reactor. , 2022, Bioresource technology.

[6]  G. Huang,et al.  Effect of micro-aerobic conditions based on semipermeable membrane-covered on greenhouse gas emissions and bacterial community during dairy manure storage at industrial scale. , 2022, Environmental pollution.

[7]  B. Ndaba,et al.  Unravelling the anaerobic digestion ‘black box’: Biotechnological approaches for process optimization , 2021, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

[8]  G. Gao,et al.  Metagenome-assembled genomes and gene catalog from the chicken gut microbiome aid in deciphering antibiotic resistomes , 2021, Communications Biology.

[9]  A. Goesmann,et al.  Bakta: rapid and standardized annotation of bacterial genomes via alignment-free sequence identification , 2021, Microbial genomics.

[10]  Yue-qin Tang,et al.  Chasing the metabolism of novel syntrophic acetate-oxidizing bacteria in thermophilic methanogenic chemostats , 2021, bioRxiv.

[11]  Y. Teoh,et al.  The potential of sustainable biogas production from biomass waste for power generation in Pakistan , 2021, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[12]  P. Bork,et al.  Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation , 2021, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  T. Williams,et al.  A methylotrophic origin of methanogenesis and early divergence of anaerobic multicarbon alkane metabolism , 2021, Science Advances.

[14]  KeChrist Obileke,et al.  Waste to Energy: A Focus on the Impact of Substrate Type in Biogas Production , 2020, Processes.

[15]  Changsoo Lee,et al.  Magnetite-assisted in situ microbial oxidation of H2S to S0 during anaerobic digestion: A new potential for sulfide control , 2020 .

[16]  C. Gallert,et al.  Syntrophic acetate oxidation replaces acetoclastic methanogenesis during thermophilic digestion of biowaste , 2020, Microbiome.

[17]  Yue-qin Tang,et al.  Identification of novel potential acetate-oxidizing bacteria in thermophilic methanogenic chemostats by DNA stable isotope probing , 2019, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[18]  Yong Sik Ok,et al.  Production of bioplastic through food waste valorization. , 2019, Environment international.

[19]  Hiroyuki Ogata,et al.  KofamKOALA: KEGG Ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold , 2019, bioRxiv.

[20]  Feng Li,et al.  MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies , 2019, PeerJ.

[21]  James R. Cole,et al.  The Microbial Genomes Atlas (MiGA) webserver: taxonomic and gene diversity analysis of Archaea and Bacteria at the whole genome level , 2018, Nucleic Acids Res..

[22]  Elaina D. Graham,et al.  Potential for primary productivity in a globally-distributed bacterial phototroph , 2018, The ISME Journal.

[23]  J. Chun,et al.  UBCG: Up-to-date bacterial core gene set and pipeline for phylogenomic tree reconstruction , 2018, Journal of Microbiology.

[24]  Marta Nierychlo,et al.  The impact of immigration on microbial community composition in full-scale anaerobic digesters , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[25]  Natalia N. Ivanova,et al.  Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea , 2017, Nature Biotechnology.

[26]  A. Karlsson,et al.  Importance of sulfide interaction with iron as regulator of the microbial community in biogas reactors and its effect on methanogenesis, volatile fatty acids turnover, and syntrophic long-chain fatty acids degradation. , 2017, Journal of bioscience and bioengineering.

[27]  Alexander J Probst,et al.  Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy , 2017, Nature Microbiology.

[28]  Maria Westerholm,et al.  Biogas production through syntrophic acetate oxidation and deliberate operating strategies for improved digester performance , 2016 .

[29]  M. Horn,et al.  IMNGS: A comprehensive open resource of processed 16S rRNA microbial profiles for ecology and diversity studies , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[30]  S. Campanaro,et al.  Deeper insight into the structure of the anaerobic digestion microbial community; the biogas microbiome database is expanded with 157 new genomes. , 2016, Bioresource technology.

[31]  Kensuke Igarashi,et al.  Hydrogen-Sulfide-Free Methane Production by Fermenter–Methanogen Syntrophy Using Dacite Pumice under Aerobic Gas Phase , 2016 .

[32]  S. Salzberg,et al.  Centrifuge: rapid and sensitive classification of metagenomic sequences , 2016, bioRxiv.

[33]  Blake A. Simmons,et al.  MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets , 2016, Bioinform..

[34]  Connor T. Skennerton,et al.  CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes , 2015, Genome research.

[35]  T. Günther,et al.  Eubacteria and archaea communities in seven mesophile anaerobic digester plants in Germany , 2015, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[36]  Aaron Marc Saunders,et al.  Ammonia and temperature determine potential clustering in the anaerobic digestion microbiome. , 2015, Water research.

[37]  D. Huson,et al.  Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND , 2014, Nature Methods.

[38]  Kunihiko Sadakane,et al.  MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph , 2014, Bioinform..

[39]  Torsten Seemann,et al.  Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation , 2014, Bioinform..

[40]  S. Sørensen,et al.  454 pyrosequencing analyses of bacterial and archaeal richness in 21 full-scale biogas digesters. , 2013, FEMS microbiology ecology.

[41]  Alexey A. Gurevich,et al.  QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies , 2013, Bioinform..

[42]  Steven L Salzberg,et al.  Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2 , 2012, Nature Methods.

[43]  Marcel Martin.  Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads , 2011 .

[44]  Adam P. Arkin,et al.  FastTree: Computing Large Minimum Evolution Trees with Profiles instead of a Distance Matrix , 2009, Molecular biology and evolution.

[45]  E. Pelletier,et al.  Towards the definition of a core of microorganisms involved in anaerobic digestion of sludge , 2009, The ISME Journal.

[46]  F P van der Zee,et al.  Sulfide removal by moderate oxygenation of anaerobic sludge environments. , 2007, Bioresource technology.

[47]  Adam Godzik,et al.  Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences , 2006, Bioinform..

[48]  Ronghou Liu,et al.  Effects of adding Thermoanaerobacterium thermosaccharolyticum in the hydrogen production stage of a two-stage anaerobic digestion system on hydrogen-methane production and microbial communities , 2023, Fuel.

[49]  J. FitzGerald,et al.  The microbial ecology of anaerobic digestion: characterising novel biogas configurationsthrough molecular and statistical methods , 2018 .

[50]  A. Schnürer.  Biogas Production: Microbiology and Technology. , 2016, Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology.

[51]  B. Munk,et al.  Microbiology and Molecular Biology Tools for Biogas Process Analysis, Diagnosis and Control. , 2015, Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology.

[52]  C. Woese,et al.  Methanogenic bacteria , 1978, Nature.