The next frontier of the anaerobic digestion microbiome: From ecology to process control

Abstract The anaerobic digestion process has been one of the key processes for renewable energy recovery from organic waste streams for over a century. The anaerobic digestion microbiome is, through the continuous development of novel techniques, evolving from a black box to a well-defined consortium, but we are not there yet. In this perspective, I provide my view on the current status and challenges of the anaerobic digestion microbiome, as well as the opportunities and solutions to exploit it. I consider identification and fingerprinting of the anaerobic digestion microbiome as complementary tools to monitor the anaerobic digestion microbiome. However, data availability, method-inherent biases and correct taxa identification hamper the accuracy and reproducibility of anaerobic digestion microbiome characterization. Standardisation of microbiome research in anaerobic digestion and other engineered systems will be essential in the coming decades, for which I proposed some targeted solutions. These will bring anaerobic digestion from a single-purpose energy-recovery technology to a versatile process for integrated resource recovery. It is my opinion that the exploitation of the microbiome will be a driver of innovation, and that it has a key role to play in the bio-based economy of the decades to come.

[1]  U. Ijaz,et al.  Microbial community redundancy in anaerobic digestion drives process recovery after salinity exposure. , 2017, Water research.

[2]  Willy Verstraete,et al.  How to get more out of molecular fingerprints: practical tools for microbial ecology. , 2008, Environmental microbiology.

[3]  W. Verstraete,et al.  A time-course analysis of four full-scale anaerobic digesters in relation to the dynamics of change of their microbial communities. , 2011, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[4]  F. Bengelsdorf,et al.  Functionally redundant but dissimilar microbial communities within biogas reactors treating maize silage in co-fermentation with sugar beet silage , 2015, Microbial biotechnology.

[5]  M. V. van Loosdrecht,et al.  Anaerobic digestion without biogas? , 2015, Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology.

[6]  A. Shade Diversity is the question, not the answer , 2016, The ISME Journal.

[7]  T. Bouchez,et al.  Community shifts within anaerobic digestion microbiota facing phenol inhibition: Towards early warning microbial indicators? , 2016, Water research.

[8]  Didier L. Baho,et al.  Fundamentals of Microbial Community Resistance and Resilience , 2012, Front. Microbio..

[9]  Christin Koch,et al.  Flow cytometric quantification, sorting and sequencing of methanogenic archaea based on F420 autofluorescence , 2017, Microbial Cell Factories.

[10]  Nicolae Scarlat,et al.  Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe , 2018, Renewable Energy.

[11]  I. Zhulin Databases for Microbiologists , 2015, Journal of bacteriology.

[12]  Katherine H. Huang,et al.  A framework for human microbiome research , 2012, Nature.

[13]  S. Allison,et al.  Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  J. Klang,et al.  Marker microbiome clusters are determined by operational parameters and specific key taxa combinations in anaerobic digestion. , 2018, Bioresource technology.

[15]  L. T. Angenent,et al.  Bacterial community structures are unique and resilient in full-scale bioenergy systems , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  T. May,et al.  Online monitoring of stable carbon isotopes of methane in anaerobic digestion as a new tool for early warning of process instability. , 2015, Bioresource technology.

[17]  Zhongtang Yu,et al.  A meta-analysis of the microbial diversity observed in anaerobic digesters. , 2011, Bioresource technology.

[18]  R. Schmitz,et al.  Evaluation of 16S rRNA Gene Primer Pairs for Monitoring Microbial Community Structures Showed High Reproducibility within and Low Comparability between Datasets Generated with Multiple Archaeal and Bacterial Primer Pairs , 2016, Front. Microbiol..

[19]  B. Munk,et al.  DNA and RNA Extraction and Quantitative Real-Time PCR-Based Assays for Biogas Biocenoses in an Interlaboratory Comparison , 2016, Bioengineering.

[20]  Rick L. Stevens,et al.  A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity , 2017, Nature.

[21]  U. Ijaz,et al.  The active microbial community more accurately reflects the anaerobic digestion process: 16S rRNA (gene) sequencing as a predictive tool , 2018, Microbiome.

[22]  Kim H. Esbensen,et al.  Monitoring of anaerobic digestion processes: A review perspective , 2011 .

[23]  Per Halkjær Nielsen,et al.  MiDAS 2.0: an ecosystem-specific taxonomy and online database for the organisms of wastewater treatment systems expanded for anaerobic digester groups , 2017, Database J. Biol. Databases Curation.

[24]  M. Nierychlo,et al.  Species-level microbiome composition of activated sludge - introducing the MiDAS 3 ecosystem-specific reference database and taxonomy , 2019, bioRxiv.

[25]  H. Swerdlow,et al.  A tale of three next generation sequencing platforms: comparison of Ion Torrent, Pacific Biosciences and Illumina MiSeq sequencers , 2012, BMC Genomics.

[26]  Jun-Wei Lim,et al.  Monitoring of microbial communities in anaerobic digestion sludge for biogas optimisation. , 2018, Waste management.

[27]  Paul J. McMurdie,et al.  Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis , 2017, The ISME Journal.

[28]  J. Choo,et al.  Sample storage conditions significantly influence faecal microbiome profiles , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[29]  P. Wilmes,et al.  A year of monitoring 20 mesophilic full-scale bioreactors reveals the existence of stable but different core microbiomes in bio-waste and wastewater anaerobic digestion systems , 2018, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[30]  Perry L. McCarty,et al.  One hundred years of anaerobic treatment , 1982 .

[31]  Aaron R Quinlan,et al.  A reference bacterial genome dataset generated on the MinION™ portable single-molecule nanopore sequencer , 2014, GigaScience.

[32]  Willy Verstraete,et al.  Co-digestion of molasses or kitchen waste with high-rate activated sludge results in a diverse microbial community with stable methane production. , 2015, Journal of environmental management.

[33]  W. Verstraete,et al.  Early warning indicators for process failure due to organic overloading by rapeseed oil in one-stage continuously stirred tank reactor, sewage sludge and waste digesters. , 2012, Bioresource technology.

[34]  J. Baeyens,et al.  Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge , 2008 .

[35]  Anne-Claude Romain,et al.  Evaluation of an electronic nose for the early detection of organic overload of anaerobic digesters , 2012, Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering.

[36]  Dalia Streimikiene,et al.  Renewable Energy in the Electricity Sector and GDP per Capita in the European Union , 2019, Energies.

[37]  Anders F. Andersson,et al.  Analysing Microbial Community Composition through Amplicon Sequencing: From Sampling to Hypothesis Testing , 2017, Front. Microbiol..

[38]  Xuya Peng,et al.  Early warning indicators for monitoring the process failure of anaerobic digestion system of food waste. , 2014, Bioresource technology.

[39]  Joonyeob Lee,et al.  Bacteria and archaea communities in full-scale thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digesters treating food wastewater: Key process parameters and microbial indicators of process instability. , 2017, Bioresource technology.

[40]  Willy Verstraete,et al.  Perspectives for microbial community composition in anaerobic digestion: from abundance and activity to connectivity. , 2016, Environmental microbiology.

[41]  Yuanpeng Wang,et al.  The core populations and co-occurrence patterns of prokaryotic communities in household biogas digesters , 2015, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[42]  Alessandro Bozzon,et al.  Automatic Processing of User-Generated Content for the Description of Energy-Consuming Activities at Individual and Group Level , 2018, Energies.

[43]  Ana Carolina Campi-Azevedo,et al.  FC-TRIPLEX Chagas/Leish IgG1: A Multiplexed Flow Cytometry Method for Differential Serological Diagnosis of Chagas Disease and Leishmaniasis , 2015, PloS one.

[44]  S. Kleinsteuber,et al.  A T-RFLP database for the rapid profiling of methanogenic communities in anaerobic digesters. , 2016, Anaerobe.

[45]  Irini Angelidaki,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.

[46]  A. Clooney,et al.  16S rRNA gene sequencing of mock microbial populations- impact of DNA extraction method, primer choice and sequencing platform , 2016, BMC Microbiology.

[47]  Marta Carballa,et al.  Key microbial communities steering the functioning of anaerobic digesters during hydraulic and organic overloading shocks. , 2015, Bioresource technology.

[48]  N. Boon,et al.  Online flow cytometric monitoring of microbial water quality in a full-scale water treatment plant , 2018, npj Clean Water.

[49]  L. T. Angenent,et al.  Substrate type drives variation in reactor microbiomes of anaerobic digesters. , 2014, Bioresource technology.

[50]  S. Nahnsen,et al.  Interpretations of microbial community studies are biased by the selected 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing pipeline , 2019, bioRxiv.

[51]  L. T. Angenent,et al.  Redundancy in Anaerobic Digestion Microbiomes during Disturbances by the Antibiotic Monensin , 2018, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[52]  K. Rabaey,et al.  Microbial protein production from methane via electrochemical biogas upgrading , 2020 .

[53]  Alastair J Ward,et al.  Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. , 2008, Bioresource technology.

[54]  Manuel Porcar,et al.  The long journey towards standards for engineering biosystems , 2020, EMBO reports.

[55]  Aaron Marc Saunders,et al.  Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism is an “old school” reliable technique for swift microbial community screening in anaerobic digestion , 2018, Scientific Reports.

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

[57]  T. J. Britz,et al.  PCR-based DGGE fingerprinting and identification of methanogens detected in three different types of UASB granules. , 2006, Systematic and applied microbiology.

[58]  Nico Boon,et al.  The full-scale anaerobic digestion microbiome is represented by specific marker populations. , 2016, Water research.

[59]  Mads Albertsen,et al.  Back to Basics – The Influence of DNA Extraction and Primer Choice on Phylogenetic Analysis of Activated Sludge Communities , 2015, PloS one.

[60]  Abhishek S. Dhoble,et al.  A novel high-throughput multi-parameter flow cytometry based method for monitoring and rapid characterization of microbiome dynamics in anaerobic systems. , 2016, Bioresource technology.

[61]  Genovaitė Liobikienė,et al.  Scale, composition, and technique effects through which the economic growth, foreign direct investment, urbanization, and trade affect greenhouse gas emissions , 2019, Renewable Energy.

[62]  V. Galvita,et al.  Upgrading the value of anaerobic digestion via chemical production from grid injected biomethane , 2018 .

[63]  Dolf Gielen,et al.  The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation , 2019, Energy Strategy Reviews.

[64]  I. Smets,et al.  Cofactor F430 as a biomarker for methanogenic activity: application to an anaerobic bioreactor system , 2018, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[65]  Aviaja Anna Hansen,et al.  MiDAS: the field guide to the microbes of activated sludge , 2015, Database J. Biol. Databases Curation.