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
Hi Review you have here!
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
Hi Stefan,
DeleteWhile 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
Hi Johanna,
ReplyDeletethanks 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
Hi Eleni,
ReplyDeleteAll 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
Hi Johanna,
ReplyDeleteReally 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
Hi Ellie,
ReplyDeleteThanks 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