↓ Skip to main content

Strain-level genetic diversity of Methylophaga nitratireducenticrescens confers plasticity to denitrification capacity in a methylotrophic marine denitrifying biofilm

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Strain-level genetic diversity of Methylophaga nitratireducenticrescens confers plasticity to denitrification capacity in a methylotrophic marine denitrifying biofilm
Published in
PeerJ, April 2018
DOI 10.7717/peerj.4679
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valérie Geoffroy, Geneviève Payette, Florian Mauffrey, Livie Lestin, Philippe Constant, Richard Villemur

Abstract

The biofilm of a methanol-fed, fluidized denitrification system treating a marine effluent is composed of multi-species microorganisms, among which Hyphomicrobium nitrativorans NL23 and Methylophaga nitratireducenticrescens JAM1 are the principal bacteria involved in the denitrifying activities. Strain NL23 can carry complete nitrate (NO[Formula: see text]) reduction to N2, whereas strain JAM1 can perform 3 out of the 4 reduction steps. A small proportion of other denitrifiers exists in the biofilm, suggesting the potential plasticity of the biofilm in adapting to environmental changes. Here, we report the acclimation of the denitrifying biofilm from continuous operating mode to batch operating mode, and the isolation and characterization from the acclimated biofilm of a new denitrifying bacterial strain, named GP59. The denitrifying biofilm was batch-cultured under anoxic conditions. The acclimated biofilm was plated on Methylophaga specific medium to isolate denitrifying Methylophaga isolates. Planktonic cultures of strains GP59 and JAM1 were performed, and the growth and the dynamics of NO[Formula: see text], nitrite (NO[Formula: see text]) and N2O were determined. The genomes of strains GP59 and JAM1 were sequenced and compared. The transcriptomes of strains GP59 and JAM1 were derived from anoxic cultures. During batch cultures of the biofilm, we observed the disappearance of H. nitrativorans NL23 without affecting the denitrification performance. From the acclimated biofilm, we isolated strain GP59 that can perform, like H. nitrativorans NL23, the complete denitrification pathway. The GP59 cell concentration in the acclimated biofilm was 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than M. nitratireducenticrescens JAM1 and H. nitrativorans NL23. Genome analyses revealed that strain GP59 belongs to the species M. nitratireducenticrescens. The GP59 genome shares more than 85% of its coding sequences with those of strain JAM1. Based on transcriptomic analyses of anoxic cultures, most of these common genes in strain GP59 were expressed at similar level than their counterparts in strain JAM1. In contrast to strain JAM1, strain GP59 cannot reduce NO[Formula: see text] under oxic culture conditions, and has a 24-h lag time before growth and NO[Formula: see text] reduction start to occur in anoxic cultures, suggesting that both strains regulate differently the expression of their denitrification genes. Strain GP59 has the ability to reduce NO[Formula: see text] as it carries a gene encoding a NirK-type NO[Formula: see text] reductase. Based on the CRISPR sequences, strain GP59 did not emerge from strain JAM1 during the biofilm batch cultures but rather was present in the original biofilm and was enriched during this process. These results reinforce the unique trait of the species M. nitratireducenticrescens among the Methylophaga genus as facultative anaerobic bacterium. These findings also showed the plasticity of denitrifying population of the biofilm in adapting to anoxic marine environments of the bioreactor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 38%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 25%
Environmental Science 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#16,149,908
of 24,562,945 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#9,443
of 14,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,471
of 331,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#312
of 468 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,562,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 468 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.