PICRUSt2 functionally predicts organic compounds degradation and sulfate reduction pathways in an acidogenic bioreactor

Abstract

• Over 70% reduction of sulfate was achieved for sulfate less than 12000 mg/L.

• The decrease of genes encoding (EC: 1.3.8.1) induced the accumulation of VFAs.

• The sulfate reduction genes were primary carried by genus Desulfovibrio.

• Sulfate favored assimilatory, but inhibited dissimilatory sulfate reduction process.

For comprehensive insights into the influences of sulfate on performance, microbial community and metabolic pathways in the acidification phase of a two-phase anaerobic system, a laboratory-scale acidogenic bioreactor was continuously operated to treat wastewater with elevated sulfate concentrations from 2000 to 14000 mg/L. The results showed that the acidogenic bioreactor could achieve sulfate reduction efficiency of greater than 70% for influent sulfate content less than 12000 mg/L. Increased sulfate induced the accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFAs), especially propionate and butyrate, which was the primary negative effects to system performance under the high-sulfate environment. High-throughput sequencing coupled with PICRUSt2 uncovered that the accumulation of VFAs was triggered by the decreasing of genes encoding short-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (EC: 1.3.8.1), regulating the transformation of propanoyl-CoA to propenoyl-CoA and butanoyl-CoA to crotonyl-CoA of propionate and butyrate oxidation pathways, which made these two process hardly proceed. Besides, genes encoding (EC: 1.3.8.1) were mainly carried by order Clostridiales. Desulfovibrio was the most abundant sulfate-reducing bacteria and identified as the primary host of dissimilatory sulfate reduction functional genes. Functional analysis indicated the dissimilatory sulfate reduction process predominated under a low sulfate environment, but was not favored under the circumstance of high-sulfate. With the increase of sulfate, the assimilatory sulfate reduction process finally overwhelmed dissimilatory as the dominant sulfate reduction pathway in acidogenic bioreactor.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Acidogenic phase reactor / High-sulfate wastewater / Sulfate reduction / Acidogenic fermentation / PICRUSt2

References

[1] An Q, Cheng J R, Wang Y T, Zhu M J (2020). Performance and energy recovery of single and two stage biogas production from paper sludge: Clostridium thermocellum augmentation and microbial community analysis. Renewable Energy, 148: 214–222

[2] Baquiran J I P, Nada M A L, Posadas N, Manogan D P, Cabaitan P C, Conaco C (2020). Population structure and microbial community diversity of two common tetillid sponges in a tropical reef lagoon. PeerJ, 8: e9017

[3] Caicedo H H, Hashimoto D A, Caicedo J C, Pentland A, Pisano G P (2020). Overcoming barriers to early disease intervention. Nature Biotechnology, 38(6): 669–673

[4] Dhar B R, Park J H, Park H D, Lee H S (2019). Hydrogen-based syntrophy in an electrically conductive biofilm anode. Chemical Engineering Journal, 359: 208–216

[5] Esquivel-Elizondo S, Parameswaran P, Delgado A G, Maldonado J, Rittmann B E, Krajmalnik-Brown R (2016). Archaea and bacteria acclimate to high total ammonia in a methanogenic reactor treating swine waste. Archaea (Vancouver, B.C.), 2016: 4089684

[6] Gil-Garcia C, de Godoi L A G, Fuess L T, Damianovic M H R Z (2018). Performance improvement of a thermophilic sulfate-reducing bioreactor under acidogenic conditions: Effects of diversified operating strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 207: 303–312

[7] Han G, Shin S G, Cho K, Lee J, Kim W, Hwang S (2019). Temporal variation in bacterial and methanogenic communities of three full-scale anaerobic digesters treating swine wastewater. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 26(2): 1217–1226

[8] Jang H M, Ha J H, Park J M, Kim M S, Sommer S G (2015). Comprehensive microbial analysis of combined mesophilic anaerobic-thermophilic aerobic process treating high-strength food wastewater. Water Research, 73: 291–303

[9] Khanal S K, Huang J C (2005). Effect of high influent sulfate on anaerobic wastewater treatment. Water Environment Research: A Research Publication of the Water Environment Federation, 77(7): 3037–3046

[10] Langille M G I, Zaneveld J, Caporaso J G, McDonald D, Knights D, Reyes J A, Clemente J C, Burkepile D E, Vega Thurber R L, Knight R, Beiko R G, Huttenhower C (2013). Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nature Biotechnology, 31: 814–821

[11] Lee S H, Park J H, Kang H J, Lee Y H, Lee T J, Park H D (2013). Distribution and abundance of Spirochaetes in full-scale anaerobic digesters. Bioresource Technology, 145: 25–32

[12] Li B, Yang Y, Ma L, Ju F, Guo F, Tiedje J M, Zhang T (2015). Metagenomic and network analysis reveal wide distribution and co-occurrence of environmental antibiotic resistance genes. The ISME Journal, 9(11): 2490–2502

[13] Li J, Cai M H, Miao Y, Luo G, Li W T, Li Y, Li A M (2019a). Bacterial community structure and predicted function in an acidogenic sulfate-reducing reactor: Effect of organic carbon to sulfate ratios. Bioresource Technology, 293: 122020

[14] Li J, Li W T, Luo G, Li Y, Li A M (2019b). Effect of nitrobenzene on the performance and bacterial community in an expanded granular sludge bed reactor treating high-sulfate organic wastewater. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 13(1): 6

[15] Li J, Liang Y, Miao Y, Wang D, Jia S, Liu C H (2020). Metagenomic insights into aniline effects on microbial community and biological sulfate reduction pathways during anaerobic treatment of high-sulfate wastewater. Science of the Total Environment, 742: 140537

[16] Li R, Zhou M, He S, Pan T, Liu J, Zhu J (2021). Deciphering the effect of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate on up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket treatment of synthetic sulfate-containing wastewater. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 15: 91

[17] Linz A M, He S, Stevens S L R, Anantharaman K, Rohwer R R, Malmstrom R R, Bertilsson S, McMahon K D (2018). Freshwater carbon and nutrient cycles revealed through reconstructed population genomes. PeerJ, 6: e6075

[18] Luo G, Karakashev D, Xie L, Zhou Q, Angelidaki I (2011). Long-term effect of inoculum pretreatment on fermentative hydrogen production by repeated batch cultivations: Homoacetogenesis and methanogenesis as competitors to hydrogen production. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 108(8): 1816–1827

[19] Luo L, Kaur G, Wong J W C (2019). A mini-review on the metabolic pathways of food waste two-phase anaerobic digestion system. Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA, 37(4): 333–346

[20] Ma L, Xia Y, Li B, Yang Y, Li L G, Tiedje J M, Zhang T (2016). Metagenomic assembly reveals hosts of antibiotic resistance genes and the shared resistome in pig, chicken, and human feces. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(1): 420–427

[21] Müller N, Worm P, Schink B, Stams A J M, Plugge C M (2010). Syntrophic butyrate and propionate oxidation processes: from genomes to reaction mechanisms. Environmental Microbiology Reports, 2(4): 489–499

[22] Ozkan J, Willcox M, Wemheuer B, Wilcsek G, Coroneo M, Thomas T (2019). Biogeography of the human ocular microbiota. The Ocular Surface, 17(1): 111–118

[23] Ren N Q, Chua H, Chan S Y, Tsang Y F, Sin N (2007). Effects of COD/SO₄^2‒ ratios on an acidogenic sulfate-reducing reactor. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 46(6): 1661–1666

[24] Shan L, Zhang Z, Yu Y, Ambuchi J J, Feng Y (2017). Performance of CSTR-EGSB-SBR system for treating sulfate-rich cellulosic ethanol wastewater and microbial community analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 24(16): 14387–14395

[25] Stams A J M, Plugge C M, de Bok F A M, van Houten B H G W, Lens P, Dijkman H, Weijma J (2005). Metabolic interactions in methanogenic and sulfate-reducing bioreactors. Water science and technology: A journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 52(1–2): 13–20

[26] Wang P, Qiao Z, Li X, Su Y, Xie B (2020). Functional characteristic of microbial communities in large-scale biotreatment systems of food waste. Science of the Total Environment, 746: 141086

[27] Wei C H, Wang W X, Deng Z Y, Wu C F (2007). Characteristics of high-sulfate wastewater treatment by two-phase anaerobic digestion process with Jet-loop anaerobic fluidized bed. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 19(3): 264–270

[28] Xu Y, Gong H, Dai X (2021). High-solid anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge: Achievements and perspectives. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 15(4):71

[29] Yang S, Li J, Zheng Z, Meng Z (2009). Characterization of Spartina alterniflora as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(4): 597–602

[30] Yuan Y, Chen C, Liang B, Huang C, Zhao Y, Xu X, Tan W, Zhou X, Gao S, Sun D, Lee D, Zhou J, Wang A (2014). Fine-tuning key parameters of an integrated reactor system for the simultaneous removal of COD, sulfate and ammonium and elemental sulfur reclamation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 269: 56–67

[31] Zhang X, Zhang L, Zhang L, Ji Z, Shao Y, Zhou H, Bao Y, Qu Y, Liu L (2019). Comparison of rhizosphere bacterial communities of reed and Suaeda in Shuangtaizi River Estuary, Northeast China. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 140: 171–178

[32] Zhang Z Y, Ali M W, Saqib H S A, Liu S X, Yang X, Li Q, Zhang H (2020). A shift pattern of bacterial communities across the life stages of the citrus red mite, Panonychus citri. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press