Friday 16 December 2016

The Restaurant on the polystyrene microparticle



This is a follow up to an earlier post of mine. While I don’t think that you necessarily have to read it before, it does provide some background information
.
Recently, the term “Plastisphere” has been coined to describe the new ecological niche found around microplastics. These particles may host diverse microbial communities, which are distinct from the surrounding seawater. Scientists are concerned with the possibility of pathogenic microbes, such as Vibrios, hitchhiking on microplastics. In their paper, Foulon et al. (2016) investigated the ability of Vibrio crassostreae to colonize polystyrene microplastics under different conditions
.
The oyster pathogen V. crassostreae strain J2-9 was isolated in 2011 during a disease outbreak in an oyster bed in Brittany. Three different types of polystyrene microparticles were used (i) non-fluorescent smooth spherical microbeads (PS-s), (ii) fluorescent smooth spherical microbeads (PS-f) and (iii) non-fluorescent rough irregular microplastics (PS-i). The fluorescently-labelled Vibrios and Microplastics were incubated in glass culture tubes under continuous stirring. First, the effects of microplastic shape (smooth vs rough) and culture medium (artificial seawater vs. Zobell culture medium) were evaluated. Secondly, the effect of natural microbial communities on the J2-9 colonization process was investigated. The cultures were analysed using confocal and scanning electron microscopy. 

In the first experiment, the Vibrios exhibited rapid movement prior to adhesion to the microplastics. Subsequently, the cells appeared linked to the surface via pili, hair like appendages which attached the Vibrios to the substrate. 

In the artificial seawater, colonization of the microplastics reached its maximum (on average >14%) between 28 min and 2h 45 min. In contrast, Vibrios in the Zobell medium reached their maximum colonization (on average 75%) between 4h 30 min and 6h and 9 min. Overall, the replicates showed high variability despite identical experimental conditions. Higher nutrient availability has been shown to influence adhesion structures positively, therefore likely leading to the higher percentage of colonization in the culture medium. In comparison, the lack of nutrients in the artificial seawater may have led to migration towards an active substrate and thus earlier colonization. However, the microplastics presumably didn’t provide enough nutrients for the bacteria, thus leading to rapid decolonization. In Zobell culture some nutrients may also have been limited, but the exact relationship between nutrient availability and decolonization is yet to be determined. Moreover, hydrodynamic movements and quorum sensing communication between cells might also lead to cell detachment. 

Incubation with rough PS-i particles led to longer colonization. Here, maximum coverage was reached between 3 hours and 10-24 hours, again slightly faster in seawater samples than in Zobell samples. A complete decolonization was observed in Zobell cultures after 24h incubation, while the seawater replicates remained colonized up to 6 days. Microscopy showed the Vibrios to be located in cracks on the PS-i, thus likely being sheltered from turbulence. The PS-i were also up to 10x larger than the smooth particles. Moreover, the effect of any unknown additional chemicals in the particles cannot be discounted. Nevertheless, long-term colonization was not observed in this experiment suggesting that the J2-9 strain was not able use the particle resources. Hence, the authors conclude that V. crassostreae may be secondary colonizers, depending on other microbes to provide nutrients. In any case, further study on possible substrate affinity of Vibrios for specific synthetic polymers is necessary.

In the second experiment with natural seawater, biofouling began in the first 24h of incubation. During the next 7 days, all microparticles were incorporated into natural aggregates (marine snow), harbouring diverse microbial communities. The J2-9 were either found to be vertically structured in a corolla, or as a monospecific biofilm on the aggregates. The authors hypothesize that this could result from interspecies communication or feeding on the nutrients produced by other species in the aggregate. Interestingly, no decolonization was observed. However, after 96h the Vibrios started to disappear either through a loss of fluorescence or predation by ciliates.
The authors conclude, that V. crassostreae strain J2-9 may act as a secondary colonizer, requiring an established microbial community on microplastics. However, the results of this paper merely suggest a possibility open up new areas of research. In regards to my previous blogpost, this paper clearly indicates an upper time limit for Vibrio transport via microplastics. This information could in the future presumably be used to map transport routes and infection
.
Reviewed Paper:

Foulon, V., Le Roux, F., Lambert, C., Huvet, A., Soudant, P., & Paul-Pont, I. (2016). Colonization of polystyrene microparticles by Vibrio crassostreae: light and electron microscopic investigation. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(20), 10988-10996. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b02720

References:

Kirstein, I. V., Kirmizi, S., Wichels, A., Garin-Fernandez, A., Erler, R., Löder, M., & Gerdts, G. (2016). Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles. Marine Environmental Research, 120, 1-8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014111361630112X


Lobelle, D., & Cunliffe, M. (2011). Early microbial biofilm formation on marine plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(1), 197-200. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0025326X1000473X/1-s2.0-S0025326X1000473X-main.pdf?_tid=e830865e-b55f-11e6-b984-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1480333600_8074b98c59785186b7da541593992c3d

Zettler, E. R., Mincer, T. J., & Amaral-Zettler, L. A. (2013). Life in the “plastisphere”: microbial communities on plastic marine debris. Environmental science & technology, 47(13), 7137-7146. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401288x


6 comments:

  1. Hi Review you have here!

    The whole interaction between microbes and microplastics is fascinating. The other year I read quite into publications looking at microplastics and the affinity for toxic organic chemicals. One chemical that I looked into quite extensively was Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), an persistent organic pollutant.

    These microplastics tend to accumulate various organic chemical over time, which are often leached into organisms that consume the microplastics. I know this is a bit different to what you were looking at but I was curious if that this possible accumulation of toxic chemicals on the microplastics may effect the microbial growth and possible colonization of microplastics?

    Thank you very much, if your interested in reading into any of it I will put some links below.



    PCB Adsorption onto microplastics
    Velzeboer, I., Kwadijk, C. and Koelmans, A. (2014). Strong Sorption of PCBs to Nanoplastics, Microplastics, Carbon Nanotubes, and Fullerenes. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(9), pp.4869-4876.

    PCB leaching into organisms:

    Koelmans, A., Besseling, E. and Foekema, E. (2014). Leaching of plastic additives to marine organisms. Environmental Pollution, 187, pp.49-54.

    Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C. and Galloway, T. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), pp.2588-2597.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Stefan,

      While the microplastics in this study were supposed to be free of additives or other chemicals, the authors couldn’t guarantee that these might not influence the colonization patterns. I hadn’t looked specifically into this subject before so thank you for these links. I guess it would be very likely that the chronic toxicity of these additional chemicals influences the interactions between microbes and microplastics.

      Thanks,
      Johanna

      Delete
  2. Hi Johanna,

    thanks for the post! Did the authors mention what kind of microplastic they used for this study? I think that it could be possible that different plastics are colonized differently because of their chemical composition.
    Do the authors bring up anything like this?

    Thanks,
    Eleni

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Eleni,

    All the plastics used in this study were polystyrene plastics. The authors used both smooth microbeads and rough irregular microplastics degraded from coating. Yes, you're right substrate specify is a possibility and the authors also mention the need for further research in that area.

    Thanks for your question,
    Johanna

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Johanna,

    Really interesting couple of posts you have done - funny titles too by the way.

    After reading your posts you got me into the swing of reading about microplastic microbial interactions and there is some incredible work out there. I wanted to point out my latest post 'How low can your poo go?' as I looked into the effect of microplastics on copepods faecal pellets. Quick overview, as if you are interested you may want to read it yourself, but they found that pellets containing microplastics sank at a much slower rate, between your research paper and mine, it may be sensible to conclude that with slower sinking rates and accumulation of vibros such as V. crassostreae strain J2-9 can increase the transport of pathogens down to deeper waters, which could bring some significant impacts.

    Not really a question, just thought you may be interested.
    Many thanks,
    Ellie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Ellie,

    Thanks for your comment! Your post is very interesting and I can see the connection between both our papers. I guess with the increasing interest in microplastics we can expect many more papers exploring how they impact the marine environment.

    Thanks again,
    Johanna

    ReplyDelete

Comments from external users are moderated before posting.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.