Adaptation of Pseudomonas sp. AKS2 in biofilm on low-density polyethylene surface: an effective strategy for efficient survival and polymer degradation

Abstract

Background

Pseudomonas sp. AKS2 can efficiently degrade low-density polyethylene (LDPE). It has been shown that this degradation of LDPE by AKS2 is correlated to its ability to form biofilm on the polymer surface. However, the underlying mechanism of this biofilm-mediated degradation remains unclear. Since bioremediation potential of an organism is related to its adaptability in a given environment, we hypothesized that AKS2 cells undergo successful adaptation in biofilm on LDPE, which leads to higher level of LDPE degradation. To verify this, the current study investigated a number of parameters of AKS2 cells in biofilm that are known to be involved in adaptation process.

Results

Successful adaptation always develops a viable microbial population. So we examined the viability of AKS2 cells in biofilm. We observed the presence of viable population in the biofilm. To gain an insight, the growth of AKS2 cells in biofilm on LDPE at different time points was examined. Results showed a better reproductive competence and more colonization for AKS2 biofilm cells than planktonic cells, indicating the increased fitness of AKS2 biofilm cells than their planktonic counterpart. Towards understanding fitness, we determined the hydrolytic activity, different carbon source utilization potentials, functional diversity and homogeneity of AKS2 biofilm cells. Results showed increased hydrolytic activity (approximately 31%), higher metabolic potential, higher functional diversity (approximately 27%) and homogeneity for biofilm-harvested cells than planktonic cells. We also examined cellular surface hydrophobicity, which is important for cellular attachment to LDPE surface. Consistent with the above results, the cell surface hydrophobicity of biofilm-harvested AKS2 cells was found to be higher (approximately 26%) compared to that of their planktonic counterpart. All these results demonstrated the occurrence of physiological as well as structural adaptations of AKS2 cells in biofilm on LDPE surface that resulted in better attachment, better utilization of polymer and better growth of AKS2 cells, leading to the development of a stable colony on LDPE surface.

Conclusions

The present study shows that AKS2 cells in biofilm on LDPE surface undergo successful adaptation that leads to enhanced LDPE degradation, and thus, it helps us to understand the underlying mechanism of biofilm-mediated polymer degradation process by AKS2 cells.

Keywords

Polyethylene-based plastic material / Bioremediation / Pseudomonas / Biofilm / Adaptation

References

[1] Roy PK, Titus S, Surekha P, Tulsi E, Deshmukh C, Rajagopal C. Degradation of abiotically aged LDPE films containing pro-oxidant by bacterial consortium. Polym Degrad Stab, 2008, 93: 1917-1922.

[2] Chatterjee S, Roy B, Roy D, Banerjee R. Enzyme-mediated biodegradation of heat treated commercial polyethylene by Staphylococcal species. Polym Degrad Stab, 2010, 95: 195-200.

[3] Albertsson AC, Erlandsson B, Hakkarainen M, Karlsson S. Molecular weight changes and polymeric matrix changes correlated with the formation of degradation products in biodegraded polyethylene. J Environ Polym Degrad, 1998, 6: 187-195.

[4] Volke-Sepulveda T, Saucedo-Castaneda G, Gutierrez-Rojas M, Manzur A, Favela-Torres E. Thermally treated low density polyethylene biodegradation by Penicillium pinophilum and Aspergillus niger. J Appl Polym Sci, 2002, 83: 305-314.

[5] Tribedi P, Sil AK. Low-density polyethylene degradation by Pseudomonas sp. AKS2 biofilm. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2013, 20: 4146-4153.

[6] Cvitkovitch DG, Li YH, Ellen RP. Quorum sensing and biofilm formation in streptococcal infections. J Clin Investig, 2003, 112: 1626-1632.

[7] Kim J, Kim HS, Han S, Lee JY, Oh JE, Chung S, Park HD. Hydrodynamic effects on bacterial biofilm development in a microfluidic environment. Lab Chip, 2013, 13: 1846-1849.

[8] Dobzhansky T, Hecht MK, Steere WC. On some fundamental concepts of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology volume 2 (1st edition), 1968, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1-34.

[9] Li YH, Hanna MN, Svensater G, Ellen RP, Cvitkovitch DG. Cell density modulates acid adaptation in Streptococcus mutans: implications for survival in biofilms. J Bacteriol, 2001, 183: 6875-6884.

[10] Dash HR, Mangwani N, Chakraborty J, Kumari S, Das S. Marine bacteria: potential candidates for enhanced bioremediation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2013, 97: 561-571.

[11] de Carvalho CCCR. Adaptation of Rhodococcus erythropolis cells for growth and bioremediation under extreme conditions. Res Microbiol, 2012, 163: 125-136.

[12] Tribedi P, Sarkar S, Mukherjee K, Sil AK. Isolation of a novel Pseudomonas sp. from soil that can efficiently degrade polyethylene succinate. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2012, 19: 2115-2124.

[13] Chrzanowski TH, Crotty RD, Hubbard JG, Welch RP. Applicability of the fluorescein diacetate method of detecting active bacteria in freshwater. Microb Ecol, 1984, 10(2): 179-185.

[14] Rosenberg M, Perry A, Bayer EA, Gutnick DL, Rosenberg E, Ofek I. Adherence of Acinetobacter calcoaceticus RAG-1 to human epithelial cells and to hexadecane. Infect Immun, 1981, 33: 29-33.

[15] Choi KH, Dobbs FC. Comparison of two kinds of BiOLOG microplates (GN and ECO) in their ability to distinguish among aquatic microbial communities. J Microbiol Method, 1999, 36: 203-213.

[16] Garland JL. Analysis and interpretation of community-level physiological profiles in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 1997, 24: 289-300.

[17] Tilman D (2001) Functional Diversity. pp. 109-120. In: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Volume 3 (Levin, S.A., ed.). Academic Press, San Diego, 870 pp.

[18] Teng Y, Luo Y, Sun M, Liu Z, Li Z, Christie P. Effect of bioaugmentation by Paracoccus sp. strain HPD-2 on the soil microbial community and removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from an aged contaminated soil. Bioresour Technol, 2010, 101: 3437-3443.

[19] Tribedi P, Sil AK. Bioaugmentation of polyethylene succinate-contaminated soil with Pseudomonas sp. AKS2 results in increased microbial activity and better polymer degradation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2013, 20: 1318-1326.

[20] Killham K, Staddon WJ. Burns RG, Dick R. Bioindicators and sensors of soil health and the application of geostatistics. Enzymes in the environment: activity, ecology and applications, 2002, New York: Marcel Dekker, 391-405.

[21] Gilan(Orr) I, Hadar Y, Sivan A. Colonization, biofilm formation and biodegradation of polyethylene by a strain of Rhodococcus ruber. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2004, 65: 97-104.

[22] Balasubramanian V, Natarajan K, Hemambika B, Ramesh N, Sumathi CS, Kottaimuthu R, Rajash KV. High-density polyethylene (HDPE)-degrading potential bacteria from marine ecosystem of Gulf of Mannar, India. Lett Appl Microbiol, 2010, 51: 205-211.

[23] Chapin FS, Pamela AM, Harold AM. Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology, 2002, New York: Springer ISBN 0-387-95443-0

[24] deBeer D, Stoodley P, Roe F, Lewandowski Z. Effects of biofilm structure on oxygen distribution and mass transport. Biotechnol Bioeng, 1994, 43: 1131-1138.

[25] Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies DG, Costerton JW. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol, 2002, 56: 187-209.

[26] Aertsen A, Michiels CW. Stress and how bacteria cope with death and survival. Crit Rev Microbiol, 2004, 30: 263-273.

[27] Boles BR, Thoendel M, Singh PK. Self-generated diversity produces “insurance effects” in biofilm communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2004, 101: 16630-16635.

[28] Koh KS, Lam KW, Alhede M, Queck SY, Labbate M, Kjelleberg S, Rice SA. Phenotypic diversification and adaptation of Serratia marcescens MG1 biofilm-derived morphotypes. J Bacteriol, 2007, 189: 119-130.

[29] Price TD, Qvarnstrom A, Irwin DE. The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution. Proc R Soc Lond B, 2003, 270: 1433-1440.

[30] Odum EP. Fundamentals of ecology, 1971, 3, New York: Saunders.