Blog Archives

Yeasts 3000-years-old are alive and other histories of dormant cells

18th August 2019

Translated from the original article in Catalan

A few months ago -April 2019- my friend Jordi Diloli, Professor and Archaeologist, shared a very surprising article (Aouizerat et al 2019) with me. It was echoed on the internet (Borschel-Dan 2019), and I will comment here.

“Resurrected” yeasts from 3,000 years ago

The group of researchers led by Ronen Hazan of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem took samples of 21 clay containers from various sites in present-day Israel from 2500 to 5000 years ago, from the Persian, Philistine and Egyptian (this is the oldest) periods. Archaeologists believed that these vessels contained fermented beverages such as beer or mead (Figure 1). The authors submerged the containers in a rich YPD medium, specific for growing yeasts and other fungi, and incubated them at room temperature for 7 days. Then, samples of this medium were spread on agar plates with the specific medium, and the resulting colonies were isolated for subsequent analyses (Aouizerat et al 2019).

Fig 1 pottery Hazan

Figure 1. Clay vessels from where the yeasts were isolated (Image of Judah Ari Gross, Times of Israel).

 

The isolates that were found were 6 strains of different yeast species, and one of which was Saccharomyces cerevisiae, specifically from a Philistine site dated 3000 years ago. Obviously, it is very surprising that living yeasts of such ancient remains have been isolated. For this reason, the authors of the work carried out a series of experiments that could confirm this unique fact and that the isolates were not a product of contamination.

Firstly Aouizerat et al (2019) showed that it is possible to isolate yeasts from clay vessels that have contained beer or wine after a certain time. They did so with containers with unfiltered beer buried for 3 weeks, and also with another vessel that had repeatedly contained wine but not used last 2 years. With these samples they developed the isolation methodology and in both cases they were able to isolate yeasts. No isolates were obtained from a control sample with filtered beer, therefore without yeasts.

To demonstrate that the isolates were originals of the old vessels because these had contained the fermented beverage, authors applied the same protocol with samples of other ceramics that were surely not for this purpose, and also with sediments near the containers. The result was clearly negative for these samples: only 2 isolated yeasts from 110 samples, while the mentioned 6 yeast strains were isolated from the 21 initial samples. That is, yeasts would be significantly more abundant in containers of alcoholic fermented beverages than in other related archaeological vessels or sediments around them.

Another argument that supports the hypothesis of this work was the identification of these 6 yeasts. Total DNA was obtained and processed to sequence the genomes and compare them with the databases. Two of them, from the Egyptian period, were identified as Saccharomyces delphensis, a species that has been isolated from African dried figs and is not at all common on soil. Therefore, this suggests the use of figs in the alcoholic beverages of these containers. Another isolate was identified as Rhodotorula, common pollutant yeast in African beers. Another was identified as Debaryomyces, a frequent yeast in traditional African sorghum beers. As said before, another isolate was identified as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the yeast most used to make wine, beer or bread (Figure 2). In spite of this, the genetic sequence of this S. cerevisiae was clearly different from the strains most commonly used today, as commercial or laboratory strains, and therefore the possibility of contamination is excluded. And finally, the other isolate was identified as Hypopichia burtonii, previously isolated yeast from Ethiopian mead.

These genetic data, together with the phenotypic characterization -fermentative kinetics and other biochemical characteristics carried out with the isolates by Aouizerat et al (2019)- suggest that these yeasts actually come from an environment related to alcoholic beverages. These authors even elaborated beer with these isolates and some of them, especially the Saccharomyces, gave a very good analytical and sensory result.

Fig 2 Saccharomyces_cerevisiae_SEM.jpg

Figure 2. Saccharomyces cerevisiae at the scanning electronic microscope (MD Murtey & P Ramasamy)

 

Aouizerat et al (2019) conclude that the isolates are descendants of yeasts that were originally used 3000 years ago, in large quantities and in repeated fermentations. This would have facilitated their survival in pore microenvironments of the ceramic matrix of these containers, and the microcolonies would have continued to grow minimally for millennia thanks to the humidity and residual nutrients. The authors make the analogy with some handmade beers where it is usual that the containers waste serve as starter for new productions.

Finally, the authors of this work speculate that it is possible to isolate microorganisms from archaeological remains, not only yeasts, and that in the case of bacteria it could even be easier, given the resistance characteristics of some of them, such as the sporulated ones.

 

Is there no previous similar work to that of Aouizerat et al (2019) ?

As we have seen, this is certainly a very surprising finding. Scientifically, the work is quite accurate and has been “approved” by the international community: the article is published in an open-access journal with prestige (mBio, high impact factor: 6.7), of the American Society for Microbiology, where all the articles are reviewed by a minimum of two experts, besides the editors. The results presented by the article seem very well worked, and the conclusions are well reasoned.

However, in my opinion it is still almost incredible, and it is strange that nothing like this has been found before. Maybe if someone else had previously tried to isolate such old microorganisms without getting them, perhaps it would not have been published ? Maybe nobody has previously tried to do something similar ? A “malicious” explanation might be that archaeologists have their own interests and microbiologists or molecular biologists have others, and that for this type of work the collaboration of both is needed. Well, it seems not being so, since there are a lot of studies on microorganisms from ancient remains, but they have been almost always focused on the detection and analysis of ancient DNA. These studies demonstrated the presence of certain microorganisms although they did not proceed to isolate them.

 

DNA gives evidence of microorganisms in ancient remains

In relation to yeasts, the oldest evidence is that ribosomal DNA of Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been obtained from residues found in Egyptian wine jars 5000 years old (Cavalieri et al 2003). It must be remembered that the oldest archaeological evidence of large-scale wine production has 7400 years, in north of the Zagros Mountains, in present-day Iran (McGovern et al 1986). As it is known, S. cerevisiae is also the bread and beer yeast, derived from cereals, but since neither S. cerevisiae nor its spores are aerial, surely the use of this yeast in fermented grape juice, as well as dates, figs or honey, historically preceded its use for brewing and bread (Cavalieri et al 2003). It is probable that the wine yeasts naturally occurring in damaged grapes (Mortimer & Polsinelli 1999) were used to ferment other cereal products such as cereals, and after centuries of selection for humans, they evolved into specific strains to ferment food and beverages from cereals.

The genomes of pathogenic microorganisms have also been studied in archaeological remains by means of new massive DNA sequencing techniques, in order to know to epidemic diseases of historical importance, such as black plague, tuberculosis, cholera or leprosy (Andam et al 2016). Logically, in these cases the archaeological remains are human ones, such as bones, teeth, coprolites or mummified tissues. In this way, for example, the phylogeny and evolution of Yersinia pestis strains causing the black plague have been recognized by remains of the Bronze Age (5000 years ago) and until the well-known epidemics of the 6th and 14th centuries (Bos et al 2011). Another well-known case is the Helicobacter pylori genome identified in the intestine of the Ötzi mummy, the iceman in the eastern Alps, 5300 years old (Maixner et al 2016).

DNA has also been isolated from specific bacteria of the human gut, such as Bifidobacterium and Bacteroides, to demonstrate the human presence in archaeological sediments 5000-12000 years old, in north east of Poland (Madeja et al 2009).

It should be remembered that DNA is degraded over time, and in fact it is more unstable than other cellular components. This macromolecule spontaneously suffers damage by oxidation, hydrolysis, and fragmentation in pieces that may be less than 100 bp. Most fossils or other biological remains of more than 100,000 years old no longer contain PCR-amplifiable DNA (Hofreiter et al 2001), although it seems that if the samples are extracted from frozen sediments, with constant temperatures below zero, DNA could be recovered from up to 400,000 years or a little longer (Willerslev et al 2003). In addition the tissues are colonized over time by fungi and bacteria that greatly reduce the relative amount of endogenous molecules and can contribute to giving false positives. The risk of contamination is very high and often this is not taken in account. Generally the DNA of the host that is analysed can be less than 1% of the total DNA found. All these factors complicate the DNA extraction, the construction of sequence libraries, the alignment of DNAs and the analysis of genomes (Andam et al 2016).

Surprisingly, there are a few published works where it is found old DNA of plants, animals and various microorganisms, some million years (My) old, even hundreds of My. The most remarkable are those obtained from amber samples of 20-40 My, and those obtained from a halite 250 My old. This would be comparable to the Jurassic Park fiction where almost non-degraded DNA from the dinosaurs of 100 My old “was recovered”.

Hebsgaard et al (2005) thoroughly reviewed all these more spectacular cases, with the conclusion that these works suffered from inadequate experimental approaches and inadequate authentication of the results. Therefore, there are great doubts as to whether DNA sequences and in some cases viable bacteria could survive such large geological times.

In addition, it is worrying that these works with so old DNA have not been replicated independently in order to confirm their authenticity, and that they did not show a relationship between the age of the sample and the persistence of DNA depending on the different types of bacteria (Willerslev et al 2004). In contrast, Willerslev et al studied the persistence of DNA in permafrost and they found a clear relationship of DNA degradation with time (Figure 3). As seen, DNA amount is very small beyond 100,000 years and it is hardly found beyond 1 My.

Fig 3 willerslev A

Figure 3. Persistence of not degraded bacterial DNA over time (kyr, thousands of years) maintained in permafrost, measured by fluorescence (Willerslev et al 2004).

 

When analysing the bacterial phyla of these DNA, Willerslev et al (2004) observed (Figure 4) that the most persistent are those of Arthrobacter, the main representative of Actinobacteria (high G+C gram-positive), followed by sporulated (Bacillaceae and Clostridiaceae), and finally the Gram-negative Proteobacteria.

Fig 4 willerslev D

Figure 4. Proportions of the main bacterial phyla (Actinobacteria in brown, sporulated in orange and Proteobacteria in blue) based on DNA obtained from permafrost samples, along time (kyr, thousands of years) (Willerslev et al 2004).

 

This increased persistence of non-sporulated Actinobacteria is surprising because sporulated bacteria have always been considered the most resistant of all types of cells. Although endospores have special adaptations such as proteins binding DNA to reduce the rate of genetic modifications, they do not have active metabolism or repair and their DNA will degrade over time. The mechanism of greater resistance of Actinobacteria is unknown, but there may be some activity and repair of DNA at temperatures below zero, and/or adaptations related to the dormant cells state (Willerslev et al 2004).

Anyway, the limit for PCR-amplifying the DNA would be between 400,000 years and 1.5 My for samples kept below zero, but this is much more unlikely in non-frozen materials, such as the amber of halite samples of million years, and much less likely to find viable cells from these samples so old (Willerslev et al 2004).

 

“Resurrected” bacteria

The same commented works where DNA of some millions of years (My) was found, are the most surprising cases of having “resurrected” microorganisms, basically bacteria: viable cells of the sporulated Bacillus from amber samples of 30 My (Cano & Borucki 1995), Staphylococcus also from amber of about 30 My (Lambert et al 1998), and the most spectacular case of Bacillus from an halite of 250 My (Vreeland et al 2000 ). This sporulated bacterium would have been in a hyper-saline environment of the last Permian and trapped in a salt crystal, surviving until now. In the case of Staphylococcus isolated from amber, in spite of not being sporulated, they are bacteria very resistant to extreme conditions, and which have been isolated also from ancient permafrost and very dry environments (Lambert et al 1998).

In spite of this, the revision of these cases by Hebsgaard et al (2005) concludes that none of them fulfilled the relative rate of molecular distance test, which is the probable rate of mutations calculated in comparison to related lineages. Therefore, these isolations are arguable and not reproduced. In addition, in the case of the 250 My Bacillus, it has been argued that the inclusion of bacteria in the halite could be the consequence of a subsequent recrystallization (Lowenstein et al 2011).

Another review on microorganism preservation records (Kennedy et al 1994) comments published cases up to 600 My, indicating that it is curious that there are several cases with more than 1 My, and also cases with less than 10,000 years ago, but there are very few cases of intermediate periods. These authors also point out the doubts raised by works with surviving bacteria so old, which would surely be artefacts or contaminations.

On the other hand, the most credible works are those of Abyzov et al (2006) and Soina et al (2004), which demonstrated the presence of several living microorganisms, both prokaryotes and eukaryotes (especially yeasts, but also some microalgae), in Antarctic ice samples that have some thousands of years. These authors combined classical microbiological methods, such as enrichment and isolation of colonies, together with epifluorescence microscopy, electronic microscopy, and molecular techniques. The bacteria found were Gram-positive (Micrococcus) and gram-negative (Arthrobacter), which are not sporulated, but they have cist-shaped dormant cells, which can survive while maintaining viability at temperatures below 0ºC for some thousands of years.

When geologically ancient DNA findings are published as well as viable cultures of ancient samples, the independent reproduction of the results by another laboratory is fundamental, to exclude any contamination from the same laboratory. In the case of having recovered living cells, it is necessary to demonstrate the reproducibility of the isolation, sequencing the genomes of the cultures obtained in independent laboratories from the same sample, and checking that in both cases the genomes coincide (Hebsgaard et al 2005).

From the remains of the Roman fort of Vindolanda, in the north of England, viable endospores of Thermoactinomyces, member of Bacillales (Unsworth et al 1977) have been recovered. They are about 1900 years old and the remains were a mixture of clay with straw and other vegetable materials. The authors propose to use these sporulated bacteria as indicators in archaeological studies.

Besides sporulated bacteria, there are several groups of non-sporulated ones for which anabiosis resistance abilities have been demonstrated. In particular, they have been isolated from permafrost and the tundra soil of Siberia of about 1 My (Suzina et al., 2006), in the limit of what we mentioned earlier (Willerslev et al 2004), which is quite difficult to believe. In order to study experimentally the formation of these anabiosis forms, Suzina et al incubated several gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, and some archaea, in poor media with limiting nitrogen, and after a few months they obtained their dormant cells. They had cist structures, with capsule and a thickened cell wall, intramembranous particles and a condensed nucleoid (Figure 5). They also observed that these cysts did not have metabolic activity and supported stress factors such as lack of nutrients or heating.

Studying the permafrost isolates, they confirmed that there are cist structures very similar to those obtained in the laboratory, with multi-layer wall structures of up to 0.4 μm. In fact, these authors believe that most of the bacteria present in the permafrost and the tundra are in the form of a cyst (Suzina et al 2006).

Fig 5 fig2 modi Suzina

Figure 5. Sections of a vegetative cell (a) of Micrococcus luteus and of a cyst cell (b) of the same bacterium, obtained after 9 months of culture in a medium limiting in nitrogen. C, microcapsule; CW, cell wall; OL1, 2, 3, outer layers of the cell wall; IL, inner layer of the wall; CM, cytoplasmic membrane; N, nucleoid. The bar measures 0.3 μm (Suzina et al., 2006).

 

Other “resurrected” yeasts and fungi

Besides the surprising mentioned article by Aouizerat et al. (2019), there are other few published cases of yeasts and other “resurrected” fungi such as the following.

Chicha is a beer-like beverage from corn, yellowish and slightly effervescent, elaborated and consumed by Andean populations for some thousands of years, whose traditional process has the peculiarity of using amylase of saliva for convert the starch into fermentable sugars. Fermentation traditionally took place in clay containers called “pondos”. From the remains of the chicha pondos from the Hipia culture in Quito (2100-2800 years old), various yeast were isolated, especially Candida, Pichia and Cryptococcus (Gomes et al 2009). Interestingly, some of these yeasts have been confirmed molecularly as Candida theae, similar to those isolated from contaminated Asian tea (Chang et al 2012). It is worth mentioning the absence of Saccharomyces in these ancient chicha, although today it is the main yeast, coming probably from beer and wine fermentation that led the Spaniards (Gomes et al 2009).

From Greenland ice samples of about 100,000 years (Ma et al 1999), several microorganisms were revived, such as bacteria (Micrococcus, RhodotorulaSarcina) and yeasts (Candida, Cryptococcus) and other fungi (PenicilliumAspergillus). The authors also isolated the DNAs and demonstrated the phylogenetic relationship of the isolates. Once again, we see how ice provides a stable environment that facilitates the conservation of microorganisms and their DNA.

Raghukumar et al (2004) have recovered living Aspergillus (sporulated Ascomycota fungus) and other fungi from sediment samples of the deep-sea, about 5900 m deep in the Chagos trench, south of the Maldives, in the Indian Ocean. Based on the depth in the sediment and the present Radiolaria, authors estimated that they correspond to a minimum of 180,000 years, and up to 430,000 years in some samples. From the isolates identified as A. sydowii they obtained spores that germinated and grew in hydrostatic pressure equivalent to the depth of 5000 m, and at a temperature of 5ºC. With microscopy of epifluorescence and bright field, the fungal hypha and their relation to the particles of the sediment are clearly observed (Figure 6). It seems that this Aspergillus found in the deep-sea is the oldest fungus recovered alive so far. The authors suggest that preservation would have been possible thanks to high hydrostatic pressure, along with low temperature.

Fig 6 Raghukumar Aspergillus deepsea indian

Figure 6. Photomicrographies of deep-sea sediment (5900 m) of the Indian Ocean with hyphae of Aspergillus sydowii and sediment particles. (a) epifluorescence microscopy combined with that of bright field; (b) epifluorescence (Raghukumar et al 2004).

 

One of the most surprising works, and hard to believe, is that of Kochkina et al (2001), where a lot of fungi of all kinds and bacteria, especially actinobacteria, were isolated from samples of permafrost from Russia, Canada and Antarctica reaching 3 My old. The authors even suggested that there is no limit of years to recover viable microorganisms. This article has had very little echo, and it is not even mentioned by later articles as Raghukumar et al. (2004).

 

Conclusions

As we have seen, evidence of DNA from no-living yeasts in ancient remains related to winemaking dates back to around 5000 years in ancient Egypt (Cavalieri et al 2003). Regarding other microorganisms, taking into account the natural degradation of DNA over time, it seems that the oldest samples would be about 400,000 years at most, in particular actinobacteria in frozen sediments such as permafrost (Willerslev et al 2003 ). Publications of bacterial DNA recovered from several millions years (up to 600 My) have many scientific concerns about their credibility and reliability (Kennedy et al 1994).

With regard to living yeast as those of 3000 years apparently isolated by Aouizerat et al (2019), it seems that Candida and others were isolated from containers to elaborate chicha about 2800 years old (Gomes et al 2009), although this reference is a review and the original work does not appear to have been published. Other authors (Abyzov et al 2006; Soina et al 2004) also find alive yeasts, without specifying which ones, in Antarctic ice samples of some thousands of years. More surprising are the isolated isolations of yeast and other fungi and bacteria from Greenland ice samples 100,000 years old (Ma et al 1999), as well as those of Aspergillus from the Indian Ocean seabed of about 180,000 years (Raghukumar et to 2004).

Regarding other “resurrected” microorganisms, some of the most reliable are the several Antarctic ice bacteria of some thousands of years (Abyzov et al 2006) and Thermoactinomyces spores of Roman remains 1900 years old (Unsworth et to 1977). Of the oldest, perhaps the anabiosis forms of bacteria conserved in permafrost a million years old (Suzina et al., 2006) would have certain likelihood. Curiously, these bacteria would be non-sporulated but they would have a cyst structure, with multi-layer walls and other intracellular modifications. The other findings of “resurrected” bacteria from more millions of years of amber or halite, just like their DNA and also because of this, are very hard to believe (Hebsgaard et al 2005).

Thinking in the cellular forms of resistance and anabiosis, as the bacterial endospores and the mentioned cysts, it must be remembered that yeasts, like many other fungi, have the ability to produce spores, in particular ascospores as they are Ascomycetes. Although these ascospores have a greater capacity for resistance than vegetative cells in dry conditions or other inhospitable environments and have a persistence in time, apparently there is no work (or I have not been found) related to the recovery of yeasts ascospores from ancient remains.

The work of Aouizerat et al (2019) makes no mention of the yeast spores, neither as a possible explanation of the yeast survival in these ancient remains. In fact, they propose that the microcolonies of yeasts on ceramics pores would have continued to grow minimally during these 3000 years thanks to the humidity and residual nutrients. Well, we do not know, and neither if the yeast ascospores have had any role.

Finally, we can believe the finding of Aouizerat et al (2019) is truth, but obviously further investigation in other similar archaeological samples must be done. This research should be done not only for yeasts, but also for bacteria of other fermented products. Besides considering the sporulated ones, other bacteria should be considered, that could survive thanks to the cell cysts or other forms of anabiosis.

 

Bibliography

Abyzov SS et al (2006) Super-long anabiosis of ancient microorganisms in ice and terrestrial models for development of methods to search for life on Mars, Europa and other planetary bodies. Adv Space Res 38, 1191-1197

Andam CP et al (2016) Microbial genomics of ancient plagues and outbreaks. Trends Microbiol 24, 978 –990

Aouizerat T et al (2019) Isolation and characterization of live yeast cells from ancient vessels as a tool on bio-archaeology. mBio 10, 2, 1-21

Borschel-Dan A (2019) Israeli scientists brew groundbreaking “ancient beer” from 5,000-year-old yeast. The Times of Israel, 22nd may 2019.

Bos KI et al (2011) A draft genome of Yersinia pestis from victims of the Black Death. Nature 478, 506–510

Cano, R.J. and Borucki, M.K. (1995) Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million year-old Dominican amber. Science 268, 1060–1064

Cavalieri D et al (2003) Evidence for S. cerevisiae fermentation in ancient wine. J Mol Evol 57:S226-232

Chang CF et al (2012) Candida theae sp. nov., a new anamorphic beverage-associated member of the Lodderomyces clade. Int J Food Microbiol 153, 10-14.

Gomes FCO et al (2009) Traditional foods and beverages from South America: microbial communities and production strategies. Chapter 3 in Industrial Fermentation, ed. J Krause & O Fleischer, Nova Science Publishers.

Hofreiter M et al (2001) Ancient DNA. Nature Rev Genet 2, 353–359.

Kennedy MJ et al (1994) Preservation records of micro-organisms: evidence of the tenacity of life. Microbiology 140, 2513-2529.

Kochkina GA et al (2001) Survival of micromycetes and actinobacteria under conditions of long-term natural cryopreservation. Microbiology 70, 356-364

Lambert LH et al (1998) Staphylococcus succinus sp. nov., isolated from Dominican amber. Int J Syst Bacteriol 48, 511-518

Lowenstein TK et al (2011) Microbial communities in fluid inclusions and long-term survival in halite. GSA Today 21, 4-9

Ma L et al (1999) Revival and characterization of fungi from ancient polar ice. Mycologist 13, 70-73.

Madeja J et al (2009) Bacterial ancient DNA as an indicator of human presence in the past: its correlation with palynological and archaeological data. J Quaternary Sci 24, 317-321.

Maixner F et al. (2016) The 5300-year-old Helicobacter pylori genome of the Iceman. Science 351, 162–165

McGovern PE et al (1986) Neolithic resinated wine. Nature 381:480–481

Mortimer R & M Polsinelli (1999) On the origins of wine yeast. Res Microbiol 150, 199-204

Raghukumar C et al (2004) Buried in time: culturable fungi in a deep-sea sediment core from the Chagos Trench, Indian Ocean. Deep Sea Res Part I: Oceanog Res Papers 51, 1759-1768

Soina VS et al (2004) The structure of resting microbial populations in soil and subsoil permafrost. Astrobiology 4 (3), 345–358.

Suzina et al (2006) The structural bases of long-term anabiosis in non-spore-forming bacteria. Adv Space Res 38, 1209-1219.

Unsworth BA et al (1977) The Longevity of Thermoactinomycete Endospores in Natural Substrates. J Appl Microbiol 42, 45-52

Vreeland RH et al (2000) Isolation of a 250 milion-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt cristal. Nature 407, 897-900.

Willerslev E et al (2003) Diverse plant and animal DNA from Holocene and Pleistocene sedimentary records. Science 300, 791-795

Willerslev E et al (2004) Long-term persistence of bacterial DNA. Curr Biol 14, PR9-R10.

 

Advertisements

Bacteroides, our most abundant gram-negative bacteria

 

17th April 2019 

Translated from the original article in Catalan.

 

What are Bacteroides ?

Bacteroides is the best-known genus of the most abundant gram-negative bacterial group within us, specifically in the intestine. They are up to 8·1010 per gram of stool. They are strict anaerobes, non-sporulated, non-mobile, with a form of rod with rounded tips (Figure 1). They are resistant to bile salts, at the concentration of 20% of the small intestine, and they have a good ability to use polysaccharides.

 

Fig1 Gerard F2.large

Figure 1. Electronic micrograph of cells of Bacteroides sp. D8 (Gerard et al 2007)

First of all, it should be noted that there are excellent revisions of Bacteroides, such as that of Wexler (2007), describing their beneficial aspects in the intestinal microbiota, which we will comment on here, as well as the toxic aspects and other characteristics.

Bacteroides live exclusively in the gastrointestinal tract of animals, and therefore they show great flexibility to adapt to the nutritional conditions of the intestinal environment. As commensals and mutualists, they establish long-term partnerships with the guests and provide them with benefits. The adaptation of these bacteria includes making modifications to this environment. For instance, many Bacteroides code for cytochrome bd oxidase, which can reduce oxygen concentrations, making it easier for them to grow as strict anaerobes, and at the same time, other bacteria of the usual microbiota also benefit from this (Wexler, Goodman 2017).

The most common substrates of these bacteria are the vegetable polysaccharides of the diet and of host’s mucus (Wexler, Goodman 2017). These carbohydrates are degraded and fermented, producing mainly short-chain fatty acids (SCFA). Bacteroides are the main producers of propionate in intestinal tract, and this acid is one of the beneficial SCFA, together with acetate and butyrate, because they are an energy source for colonocytes and contribute to maintenance of the correct glucose homeostasis and lipid metabolism (Ríos-Covián et al 2017). Bacteroides also remove side chains from bile salts, facilitating the return of bile acids to liver circulation. On the other hand, another beneficial aspect is that they exclude other possible pathogens as they colonize the intestinal tract and do not let others settle.

Due to the fact that the animal’s intestinal tract is the main habitat and environmental reservoir of Bacteroides, it is thought that there has been a symbiotic evolutionary relationship between these bacteria and the hosts (Troy, Kasper 2010). As in many other evolutionary cases, this mutual commensalism between microorganisms and hosts is almost a symbiosis, where virtually each of the organisms cannot live without the other.

As habitual residents of the intestine, the vast majority of Bacteroides are not harmful, on the contrary. Nevertheless, in conditions of metabolic imbalances such as diabetes or surgical patients, some of them are opportunistic and can be pathogens, and some have a certain resistance to antibiotics. In fact, B. fragilis, the most abundant species in the microbiota of healthy people, can give in these cases very serious infections and is the most important anaerobic pathogen bacterium in humans (Mancuso et al 2005). The abundance of B. fragilis is evident even because their bacteriophages are used as tracers of human faecal matter in water (Jofre et al 1995).

 

What kind of bacteria is Bacteroides ?

As detailed in the NCBI Taxonomy section, the genus Bacteroides is a bacterium of the Fibrobacter-Chlorobi-Bacteroidetes superphylum. We can see its phylogenetic relationship with other bacterial groups in Figure 2. Bacteroidetes phylum also includes Cytophaga, Flavobacter and Sphingobacter, in addition to the Bacteroidia class, which mainly includes the Bacteroidales order. This includes 2 families: the Bacteroidaceae and the Prevotellaceae. Besides Bacteroides, Prevotella is another of the best-known genera, which in fact was previously known as B. melaninogenicus.

 

Fig2 Bern 12862_2004_Article_146_Fig1_HTML

Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree of the bacterial groups (Bern, Goldberg 2005).

 

Bacteroides, some of the predominant in the human intestinal microbiota

The human intestinal microbiota, and from mammals in general, is very complex, but surprisingly, there are few phyla that predominate. Specifically, 98% of identified bacteria in humans (Figure 3) belong to 4 phyla: 64% Firmicutes, 23% Bacteroidetes, 8% Proteobacteria and 3% Actinobacteria. Therefore, Bacteroidetes are one of the most predominant bacteria in the intestinal microbiota. In fact, since Firmicutes are such a large and diverse phylum, which includes microbes as diverse as clostridial and lactic acid bacteria, it can be considered that Bacteroidetes, as a much more homogeneous group, are practically the predominant ones.

Fig3 brock 767 modif

Figure 3. Bacterial composition of the human colon deduced from the 16S rRNA obtained from 17242 sequences of faecal samples (Madigan et al 2012)

 

To see in depth the predominant species of the intestinal microbiota, very recently, a metagenomic and functional study of 737 genomes sequenced from bacterial isolates of faecal samples from 20 British and American adults (Forster et al 2019) has been done. 273 bacterial species have been detected, of which 105 had not been found before. As we can see (Figure 4), among the 20 dominant species there are 8 Bacteroides, plus 2 Parabacteroides, that is 10 Bacteroidales, signalled in green. Therefore, they are half of the majority species. The other 10 are 6 clostridial (Firmicutes, in blue), 3 are Actinobacteria (in yellow) and 1 is Proteobacteria (in orange).

Fig4 Forster 2019 Fig4

Figure 4. Major species of the human intestinal microbiota, detected with metagenomic data analyses (Forster et al 2019).

 

Although the microbiota is different in each person, at the strain level the individual microbiota is very stable. In a study with 37 healthy people (Faith et al 2013) about 200 strains of 100 different species have been found, and 60% of the strains remain for each person in a period of 5 years. Of those that remain, those of Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria are the most stable.

In the same study (Faith et al 2013), gut microbiota of 6 people in the same family have been compared and it has been found that among the 75 most common bacterial species in the 6 persons, 18 are Bacteroidetes (24%): 11 Bacteroides, 3 Parabacteroides, AlistipesBarnesiella, Odoribacter and Butyricimonas. The only species of the 75 found in everybody is a Bacteroides: B. vulgatus.

The microbiota that accompanies us is changing throughout life (Figure 5). In fact, there are relatively few Bacteroides in the babies. However, these bacteria are already present among the few microbes of the placenta, where Proteobacteria predominate (Aagard et al 2014). After the birth, Bacteroides are increasing over the first months and years, mainly with the weaning and diet changes, as microbial diversity increases. Then, in adults Bacteroides are ones of the most abundant microbes (Gómez-Gallego, Salminen 2016).

Fig5 GomezGallego fig 1

Figure 5. Changes in the human microbiota throughout life (Gómez-Gallego, Salminen 2016).

 

Solid food intake in children, between 4 months and 1 year, causes a significant increase in Bacteroidetes (Figure 6). We see the great difference in the microbial composition from 118 day to 370. It is a pity that in this study (Koenig et al 2011) no more intermediate samples were took between these days, where little by little children go from porridge and a bit of cereals, to the ingestion of peas and other legumes, carrots, potatoes, etc. This increase in Bacteroidetes with solid food is surely related to the fact that Bacteroidetes are specialists in the breakdown of complex polysaccharides, and at the same time these compounds promote their growth. At the same time, there is a clear increase in the levels of AGCC, an enrichment of microbial genes associated with the use of carbohydrates, a greater biosynthesis of vitamins, and also an increase of xenobiotic degradation. Therefore, the role of Bacteroidetes seems primordial in the establishment and maintenance of the adult’s microbiota. Even though there are differences between individuals, once adult, microbial composition is quite stable throughout life, with certain variations depending on changes in diet or habitat or medication.

Fig6 Koenig fig 3

Figure 6. Metagenomic analysis of DNA sequences extracted from faecal samples of children (Koenig et al 2011).

 

Bacteroides in other mammals

The intestinal microbiota is present in all animals with a more or less developed digestive system. Apart from the insects, whose microbiota has been deeply studied (Engel, Moran 2013), the most studied in this aspect are mammals, of course. Their composition has been studied (Ley et al 2008), specifically in faecal samples of 106 individuals of 60 species of 13 different taxa, including human, other primates, herbivores, carnivores and omnivores.

Of the 17 bacterial phyla found, 65% were Firmicutes, 16% Bacteroidetes, 8% Proteobacteria and 5% Actinobacteria, among others. Therefore, the relevance of the Bacteroides is evident, and the proportions are similar to those mentioned above for humans. Regarding the majority group of Firmicutes, it is a pity that this work, like others, does not distinguish between different groups, especially among lactic acid bacteria and Clostridiales. Curiously in this work there is a greater presence of Bacteroides in primates and omnivores in general, and also in some herbivores, than in carnivores (Figure 7). In these there are very few Bacteroides, and instead there are more gamma-Proteobacteria, probably enterobacteria (Ley et al 2008).

Fig7 Ley fig S1A

Figure 7. Percentage of faecal samples sequences of different mammals assigned to the main different bacterial phyla (Ley et al 2008)

 

Different Bacteroidales are biomarkers of lifestyles

In the search for microbial taxa that could be biomarkers of diets or lifestyles, it has been seen that the biomarker more clearly related with people from rich western countries is the genus Bacteroides, whereas to the sub-Saharan ones it is Prevotella, another one of the same phylum. These two genera, together with some from the clostridia group, are the most abundant ones.

If the long-term majority diet is rich in animal proteins and fats, as in Western countries, Bacteroides predominates, and if the diet is rich in carbohydrates like in sub-Saharan countries, Prevotella prevails (Gorvitovskaia et al 2016).

 

What about Bacteroides in cases of dysfunction?

The beneficial relevance of Bacteroides, or their group, Bacteroidetes,on health is obvious in cases of diseases or dysfunctions such as allergies or obesity (Figure 8), where the diversity of the microbiota is much lower, and the number of Bacteroidetes is low.

Fig8 GomezGallego fig 2

Figure 8. Changes in the microbiota in dysfunctional situations such as allergies and obesity. (Gómez-Gallego, Salminen 2016).

 

Bacteroides against obesity

Well-known experiments of intestinal microbiota in relation to obesity have been those carried out with mice without previous microbiota colonized with microbiota from human twins of which one was obese and the other lean (Ridaura et al 2013). The result was that the mice with obese twin microbiota (Ob) became obese, while those of lean twin microbiota remained lean (Ln) (Figure 9). In addition, in the lean mice a greater intestinal production of SCFA and a greater microbial transformation of the bile acids were observed, whereas in the obese there was a greater metabolism of branched amino acids.

As mentioned in the previous section, in the obese mice a reduction of 50% Bacteroidetes is observed, apart from an increase in Firmicutes and methanogens (Figure 10). And as we see the Archaea methanogens decrease the hydrogen, producing methane, and the lower level of hydrogen promotes fermentation of ingested food in excess by the Firmicutes.

Fig9 mice obese lean Kay Chersnush

Figure 9. Obese and lean mice resulting from colonization with gut microbiota from obese and lean human twins respectively (image of Kay Chernush / Getty Images).

 

Fig10 brock 768 modif

Figure 10. Differences in intestinal microbial communities between lean (left) and obese (right) mice (Madigan et al 2012).

 

The most surprising, however, of this work (Ridaura et al 2013) is the cohabitation experiment of the two types Ob and Ln mice, where it is observed that after 10 days of coexisting together, the obese have diminished their body fat (Figure 11), and when their microbiota have been studied by sequencing, a transfer of the microbiota from lean mice to obese is observed (Figure 12). As we can see, the main bacteria transferred are Bacteroidales, which strengthens the importance of these bacteria.

Fig11 ridaura change body

Figure 11. Adiposity (% body fat) of obese (Ob) and lean mice (Ln), and the same after 10 days of cohabitation in the same cage (Obch and Lnch) (Ridaura et al 2013).

 

Fig12 ridaura ob ln bacteroi

Figure 12. Demonstration of the transfer of Bacteroidales (7 species: 5 Bacteroides, 1 Parabacteroides and 1 Alistipes) of the intestinal microbiota of lean mice (Lnch)  to the obese (Obch) after 10 days of cohabitation in the same cage. Each column corresponds to a mouse (Ridaura et al 2013).

 

Bacteroides against cholesterol

It has been known for many years that the intestinal microbiota is able to convert cholesterol in its saturated form, coprostanol (Figure 13). In other mammals some Eubacterium (belonging to the clostridial group) have been found to be responsible, but in humans we did not know what microorganisms could do it. Recently Gérard et al (2007) have isolated a strain of human stool that is able to do it and has been identified as Bacteroides, probably a species close to B. vulgatus.

Fig13 Gerard colesterol

Figure 13. Formulas of cholesterol and coprostanol (Gerard et al 2007)

 

Glycans (polysaccharides), important for mutualism between Bacteroides and the human host

Most non-digested macromolecules that reach the colon are glycans (word virtually synonymous of polysaccharides), which are a very important part of the fibre. The only glycan that is practically digested previously in the small intestine is starch. The consortium of microorganisms that inhabit the colon produces a huge enzymatic repertoire with the ability to degrade a range of complex polysaccharides that the host cannot process. That’s why the intestinal microbiota is often referred to as a metabolic organ.

On the other hand, the abundant commensal microbes of the intestinal microbiota must resist the inhospitable conditions of the previous sections and to settle in the colon without affecting the host. Therefore, instead of interacting with the epithelial cells of the intestine, they remain in the external mucus layer on the epithelial surface. At the same time, this mucus protects resident microbes from attacks by other bacteria and bacteriophages, and it is a nutrient substrate. It has been shown that the ability to survive in this ecosystem is closely related to the use and production of glycans by resident bacteria (Comstock 2009).

Well, precisely this ability to interact with glycans is an important characteristic of Bacteroidales, which, as we have seen, are the most abundant microorganisms in the intestine, along with Firmicutes. In fact, Bacteroidales have an extensive enzymatic machinery to use the complex polysaccharides present in the colon, and use them as a source of carbon and energy. This great capacity has been proven by sequencing the genome of B. thetaiotaomicron (Xu et al 2003) where it has found containing more than 80 loci of polysaccharides that encode proteins related to the detection, importation and degradation of specific glycans of the colon.

As we can see (Figure 14), Bacteroides use both the glycans of the host’s diet and those produced by the intestinal epithelium, they metabolize them, and produce the beneficial SCFA, and on the other hand, they synthesize glycans that accumulate in the form of exopolysaccharide (EPS) contributing to form biofilms, and in capsules that give immune signals to the host (Comstock 2009). All in all, the relevance of the glycans in the mutual relations between Bacteroides and the human host is confirmed.

Fig14 Comstock F1

Figure 14. Use and production of glycans (polysaccharides) by Bacteroides. IM (inner membrane): cytoplasmic membrane; OM (outer membrane): external part of the gram-negative cell wall; EPS: exopolysaccharide of mucosal layers, not covalently linked, unlike the capsular polysaccharide (Comstock 2009).

 

In addition to the glycans produced by the host, some Bacteroides can also use those that produce other microorganisms of the microbiota, as shown by B. fragilis, the most frequent species on the surface of the intestinal mucosa, which can metabolize exopolysaccharides produced by bifidobacteria (Ríos-Covian et al 2016). EPS production for bifidobacteria is stimulated by bile. This ability of B. fragilis to use EPS of bifidobacteria gives them more survival capacity when nutrients are scarce. At the same time, the degradation of the EPS can affect the viability of the bifidobacteria, and therefore, Bacteroidales would have a regulatory role of the intestinal microbiota in general.

Some glycans produced by Bacteroidales have a beneficial effect on the host’s immune system. In particular, it has been seen that polysaccharide A (PSA) produced by B. fragilis is able to activate the immune response on T-cells dependent, which influences the development and homeostasis of the immune system (Troy, Kasper 2010). In fact, the colonization of germ-free mice (without microbiota) with B .fragilis is sufficient to correct the previous imbalance of cells Th1 and Th2 (T helper) (Figure 15). In addition, PSA can protect against colitis, such as those produced by Helicobacter, by repressing proinflammatory cytokines associated with another type of T cells -Th17- and other mechanisms (Mazmanian et al 2008).

Fig15 Troy Fig1 PSA B fragilis

Figure 15. Impact of polysaccharide A (PSA) of Bacteroides fragilis in the development of the immune system by recovering the balance of Th1/Th2 cells (Troy, Kasper 2010).

 

The diet can make Bacteroides contribute to a good metabolic balance

In relation to said above about glycans such as EPS, it has been seen that if in the environment there is little organic nitrogen and an easily fermentable carbon source such as glucose, Bacteroides produce more lactate and less propionate, and instead with more organic nitrogen (yeast extract) and polysaccharides, these bacteria produce more propionate (Ríos-Covián et al 2017). When EPS are present, as more complex carbohydrates and slowly fermented, the carbon of the amino acids can be incorporated at the level of pyruvate, and then the path to succinate and propionate is enhanced and the redox equilibrium is maintained. Since a higher propionate production is beneficial to the host, these authors conclude that in cases of host metabolic dysfunctions, a good diet design (complex carbohydrates with organic nitrogen) would help to modify metabolic activity of Bacteroides, and these would help promote healthy effects to the host, in addition to interacting with the other beneficial bacteria.

 

Bacteroides as probiotics?

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) has not accepted virtually any claim of positive effects of probiotics on health due to the restrictive requirements of studies with humans. The mechanism of probiotics action is strain-dependent and often is not well known. In addition, it could be that the incorporated bacteria did not produce sufficient measurable changes in healthy individuals to obtain a claim of health effect. Further studies at the genetic level, antibiotic resistance profile and probiotic selection criteria are required.

Traditional probiotics are mostly Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, but also some strains of other lactic acid bacteria, and from Bacillus, E. coli and Saccharomyces. Besides these, the so-called “next generation” probiotics are being introduced, thanks mainly to new culture and sequencing techniques. Among these new possible probiotics, there are the verrucomicrobial Akkermansia muciniphila, and some clostridia (see my post), like Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, the main producer of butyrate, but also some Bacteroidales. These ones also have a clear advantage over clostridia and other Firmicutes, because are much more stable in the intestinal tract throughout the life of the person (Faith et al 2013).

As we have seen, being some of the most abundant microorganisms in our intestinal microbiota, Bacteroides generally have clear benefits for the host, such as fighting against obesity, or cholesterol. Transplants of faecal microbiota for diarrhea associated with Clostridium difficile infections are being successful (Van Nood et al 2013) and therefore there is a clear possibility of using some specific strain or several ones, and in this way the Bacteroides are clear candidates due to their abundance in the samples of faecal microbiota.

In addition to those mentioned, other benefits of Bacteroides are those related to the immune system, at the level of cytokines and T cells and development of antibodies, in order to treat intestinal colitis, immune dysfunction, disorders of metabolism and even cancer prevention (Tan et al 2019).

Apart from the benefits shown to the host, a bacterial strain must have unambiguous security status in order to be considered probiotic. In the case of Bacteroides, recently, a strain (DSM 23964) of B. xylanisolvens isolated from stools of healthy humans has been studied and it has been shown to have no virulence determinants which have been found in some opportunistic Bacteroides, such as the enterotoxin bft and enzymatic biodegradative activities of extracellular matrix and PSA. This strain does not have resistance to antibiotics – although it is resistant to some – and no plasmids have been detected, which makes the transfer of possible resistance very unlikely. Therefore, this strain seems very safe (Ulsemer et al 2012a). It has also been seen that it does not adhere to the walls of the intestine, but it resists the action of gastric enzymes and low pH. In addition, as indicated by the name of the species, it degrades xylan and other pectins. These heteropolysaccharides are prebiotics, compounds that are beneficial for the gut microbiota.

Other basic probiotic characteristics found in this strain of B. xylanisolvens are the production of SCFA and immunomodulatory properties. These properties and the safety and good tolerance of this strain have been verified by incorporating it in fermented milk, after inactivation by heat. This milk has been ingested in trials by healthy humans, with safe effects (Ulsemer et al 2012b). Its safety has also been confirmed in studies of toxicity in mice, where high doses of the strain have not produced toxic or mutagenic effects, neither haematological nor histopathological damage (Ulsemer et al 2012c).

On the basis of these studies, the European Food Safety Authority has given the approval as a new food of the use of fermented milks with B. xylanisolvens DSM 23964 pasteurized (EFSA 2015). However, there is no claim to consider it as a probiotic, especially because bacteria are not viable as the product has been pasteurized, and by definition, probiotics should be living microorganisms.

 

Perspectives

We have seen the relevance of Bacteroides as one of the main components of the human intestinal microbiota and mammals in general. In addition to its fundamental role in the intestine and the possibilities of its use as a probiotic, it is an ideal model for the study of gut bacteria, because it is relatively easy of cultivating and has the potential to be genetically manipulated (Wexler, Goodman 2017). Therefore, it is necessary to deepen the knowledge of Bacteroidales, and in particular to know how they metabolize the host’s nutrients or mucus, or how they respond to changes in the host’s diet, or how they interact with the other microorganisms of the digestive tract. A better understanding of all these mechanisms will favour the design of therapeutics aimed at modifying the microbiota of patients suffering from various diseases and metabolic disorders linked to the intestinal microbiota (Wexler, Goodman 2017).

 

Bibliography

Aagaard K(2014) The placenta harbors a unique microbiome. Sci Transl Med 6, 237ra65

Bern M, Goldberg D (2005) Automatic selection of representative proteins for bacterial phylogeny. BMC Evolut Biol 5:34

Comstock LE (2009) Importance of glycans to the host – Bacteroides mutualism in the mammalian intestine. Cell Host & Microbe 5, 522-526

EFSA, European Food Safety Authority (2015) Scientific opinion on the safety of “heat-treated milk products fermented with Bacteroides xylanisolvens DSM 23964″ as a novel food. EFSA J 13(1):3956

Engel P, Moran NA (2013) The gut microbiota of insects – diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol Rev 37, 699-735

Faith JJ et al (2013) The long-term stability of the human gut microbiota. Science 341, 1237439

Forster et al (2019) A human gut bacterial genome and culture collection for improved metagenomic analyses. Nature Biotechnol 37, 186-192

Gérard P et al (2007) Bacteroidessp. strain D8, the first cholesterol-reducing bacterium isolated from human feces. Appl Env Microbiol 73, 5742-5749

Gómez-Gallego C, Salminen S (2016) Novel probiotics and prebiotics: how can they help in human gut microbiota dysbiosis ? Appl Food Biotechnol 3, 72-81

Gorvitovskaia A et al (2016) Interpreting Prevotella and Bacteroides as biomarkers of diet and lifestyle. Microbiome 4:15, 1-12

Jofre J et al (1995) Potential usefulness of bacteriophages that infect Bacteroides fragilis as model organisms for monitoring virus removal in drinking water treatment plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 61, 3227-3231

Koenig JE et al (2011) Succession of microbial consortia in the developing infant gut microbiome. PNAS 108, 4578-4585

Ley RE et al (2008) Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science 320, 1647-1651

Madigan MT, Martinko JM, Stahl DA, Clark DP (2012) Brock Biology of Microorganisms. 13th Ed. Pearson

Mancuso G et al (2005) Bacteroides fragilis – derived lipopolysaccharide produces cell activation and lethal toxicity via Toll-like receptor 4. Infect Immunity 73, 5620-5627

Mazmanian et al (2008) A microbial symbiosis factor prevents intestinal infammatory disease. Nature 453, 620-625

Ridaura VK et al (2013) Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice. Science 341, 1241214

Ríos-Covian et al (2016) Bacteroides fragilis metabolises exopolysaccharides produced by bifidobacteria. BMC Microbiol 16, 150

Ríos-Covian et al (2017) Shaping the metabolism of intestinal Bacteroides population through diet to improve human health. Front Microbiol 8, 376

Tan H et al (2019) Investigations of Bacteroides spp., towards next-generation probiotics. Food Res Internat 116, 637-644

Troy EB, Kasper DL (2010) Beneficial effects of Bacteroides fragilis polysaccharides on the immune system. Front Biosci 1, 15:25-34.

Ulsemer P et al (2012)a Preliminary safety evaluation of a new Bacteroides xylanisolvens isolate. Appl Env Microbiol 78, 528-535

Ulsemer P et al (2012)b Safety and tolerance of Bacteroides xylanisolvens DSM 23964 in healthy adults. Benef Microb 3, 99-111

Ulsemer P et al (2012)c Safety assesment of the commensal strain Bacteroides xylanisolvens DSM 23964. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 62, 336-346

Van Nood E (2013) Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. New Eng J Medicine 368, 407-415

Wexler HA (2007) Bacteroides: the Good, the Bad, and the Nitty-Gritty. Clin Microbiol Rev 20, 593-621

Wexler AG, Goodman AL (2017) An insider’s perspective: Bacteroides as a window into the microbiome. Nat Microbiol 2, 17026

Wikipedia contributors. Bacteroides [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2019 March 19

Xu J et al (2003) A genomic view of the human – Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron symbiosis. Science 299, 2074-2076

Plastic-eating bacteria

25th December 2018

Translated from the original article in Catalan.

Plastic ocean

We humans are destroying the planet Earth. Besides climate change (there are still ignorant people who do not believe it), the depletion of natural resources and the massive extinction of animal and plant species, one of the most visual effects is the coverage of the planet with rubbish. Since 71% of the surface is marine, most of the non-degrading waste finishes in the sea. In the oceans there are already large expansions covered by floating debris, especially plastics, called “plastic islands” (Figure 1). In the North Pacific area, where different sea currents come together, the “island” reaches 1500 km of radius, with plastics up to 200 meters deep, and continues to grow. There is more information of it, and also about the environmental consequences, in the Wikipedia article Great Pacific garbage patch.

F1 great-pacific-garbage-patch

Figure 1. Small portion of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (From oceanandreserveconservationalliance.com)

 

PET plastics

Although there are many types of plastics, one of the most used and most abundant in waste and “plastic islands” is polyethylene terephthalate, known as PET or PETE (Figure 2). It is a type of thermoplastic polymer, vulgarly plastic, which belongs to the so-called polyesters, and is obtained by synthesis from petroleum. It is harmless, very resistant and lightweight and has multiple applications (Figure 3). Counting only bottles of PET for refreshing beverages, 1 million of them per minute are sold in the world. It is a recyclable material (see Pet bottle recycling in Wikipedia) but very resistant to biodegradation. In nature it can last some hundreds of years.

F2 PET molecular structure

Figure 2. PET, polyethylene terephthalate.

 

F3 pet uses www.technologystudent.com

Figure 3. Several applications of PET (From http://www.technologystudent.com).

 

PET is “eaten” by Ideonella sakaiensis

I. sakaiensis (Figure 4) are bacteria with rod shape, gram-negative, non esporulate aerobic heterotrophic, mobile with a flagellum, and catalase (+) and oxidase (+) (Tanasupawat et al 2016). They grow at neutral pH and are mesophilic, with optimum at 30-37°C. They belong to the phylogenetic group of betaproteobacteria, which include, besides many others, the known Neisseria (gonorrhoea and meningitis) and the nitrifying Nitrosomonas.

F4 Ideonella-sakaiensis falsecolorSEM Yoshida S

Figure 4. Scanning electron microscope images (false colour) of Ideonella sakaiensis cells grown on PET film for 60 h (From Yoshida et al 2016).

 

The 201-F6 strain, the first of the new species I. sakaiensis, was isolated from a landfill and identified in 2016 by a Japanese group of the Kyoto Institute of Technology that looked for bacteria using plastic as carbon source, from samples of remains of PET bottles (Yoshida et al 2016). They saw that these bacteria adhere to a low-grade PET film and can degrade it, by means of two enzymes characterized by these authors: a PETase and a MHETase, which produce terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol acid (Figure 5), which are benign environmental substances and that the bacteria can be metabolized. A colony of I. sakaiensis completely degraded a low-grade PET bottle in 6 weeks. High-grade PET products need to be heated to weaken them before the bacteria can degrade them. This is the first bacterium found as a PET degrader, and uses it as the only carbon source and energy source. Since PET has existed only for 70 years, these bacteria should have evolved in this short period until being able to degrade PET in a few weeks, instead of hundreds of years in nature (Sampedro 2016).

F5 Yoshida fig 3 right

Figure 5. Predicted metabolic pathway of PET degradation by I. sakaiensis: extracellular PETase hydrolyses PET giving monohydroxyethyl terephthalic (MHET) and terephthalic acid (TPA). MHETase hydrolyses MHET to TPA and ethylene glycol (EG). The TPA is incorporated through a specific transporter (TPATP) and is catabolized to cyclohexadiene and this to protocatechuic acid (PCA) by the DCDDH. Finally, the PCA ring is cut by a PCA 3.4 dioxygenase with oxygen, as known for degradation of phenolic compounds and other xenobiotics. The numbers in parentheses are the ORF of the corresponding genes (From Yoshida et al 2016).

 

Previously, only some tropical microfungi (Fusarium solani) were known to degrade PET, and they also excreted esterases. In this case, Fusarium would be used to modify the polyester fabric, to achieve more hydrophilic and easier to work (Nimchua et al 2008). It is important to remember the structural similarity of synthetic PET fabrics (Figure 3) to those of natural fibre such as cotton, since these contain cutin, which is a polyester, a waxy polymer from the external parts of the plants. Therefore, the enzymes of Fusarium or Ideonella must be relatively similar to those that were already in nature long before the plastics were invented.

 

Recent genetic improvement of the enzyme PETase of Ideonella sakaiensis

In order to better understand the function and specificity of the PETase, a group of American and British researchers have recently characterized the structure of this enzyme (Austin et al 2018), mainly by high resolution X-ray crystallography, comparing it with a homologous cutinase obtained from actinobacteria Thermobifida fusca. The main differences between the two have been a greater polarization in the surface of the PETase (pI 9.6) than in the cutinase (pI 6.3), and on the other hand (Figure 6), a greater width of the active-site cleft in the case of PETase of I. sakaiensis. The cleft widening would be related with an easy accommodation of aromatic polyesters such as PET.

F6 austin fig 2 modif

Figure 6. Compared structures (left) of the PETase of I. sakaiensis (above) and the cutinase of actinobacterium Thermobifida fusca (below), obtained by high resolution X-ray crystallography (0.92 Å). The active-site cleft is marked with a red dotted circle. Details (right) of the active site with different cleft widths in the PETase of I. sakaiensis (above) and the cutinase of T. fusca (below) are shown. (From Austin et al 2018).

 

Hypothesizing that the structure of the active site of the PETase would have resulted from a similar cutinase in an environment with PET, Austin et al (2018) proceeded to make mutations in the PETase active-site to make it more similar to cutinase and obtained a double mutant S238F/W159H which theoretically would make the entry of the active site closer (Figure 6). But their surprise was capital when they saw that the mutant degraded the PET better (an improvement of 20%), with an erosion of the PET film (Figure 7 C) even greater than the original PETase (Figure 7B). The explanation was that mutant changes in amino acid residues favoured PET intake in the active site, despite making a closest cleft (Austin et al 2018).

F7 austin fig 3 modif

Figure 7. Scanning electronic microscopy images of a piece of PET without microorganisms (A), after incubating 96 h with PETase of the I. sakaiensis 201-F6 (B), and with PETase of the double-mutant S238F/W159H (C) (From Austin et al 2018).

 

In addition, these authors have shown that this PETase degrades also other similar semi aromatic polyesters, such as polyethylene-2,5-furonicarboxylate (PEF), and therefore this enzyme can be considered an aromatic polyesterase, but it does not degrade aliphatic ones.

The conclusion of their work is that protein engineering is feasible in order to improve the performance of PETase and that we must continue to deepen in the knowledge of their relationships between structure and activity for the biodegradation of synthetic polyesters (Austin et al 2018).

 

Other plastic-eating microbes ?

The discovery of I. sakaiensis has been very important for the possibility of establishing a rapid recycling process for PET, but it is not the first organism that has been found as plastic consumer. By the way, we can see the formulas of the main plastics derived from petroleum in Figure 8.

F8 Shah 2008 Fig 1

Figure 8. Formulas of the most common petroleum plastics: polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE) and polyurethane (PU) (From Shah et al 2008).

 

Reviewing the bibliography, we see that many cases of plastic degrading microorganisms have been described (Shah et al 2008), especially polyethylene, polyurethane and PVC: various PseudomonasRhodococcus and Comamonas among bacteria, and some Penicillium, Fusarium and Aspergillus between fungi.

Among the polyurethane consumers, mushrooms are highlighted (Howard 2002), and especially the plants endophyte Pestalotiopsis microspora, which can use polyurethane as the only source of carbon (Russell et al 2011).

On the other hand, the ability of the mealworms, the larval forma of the darkling beetle Tenebrio molitor, to chew and degrade the polystyrene foam is well known (Yang et al 2015). Fed only with the PS, these larvae degrade it completely in relatively short periods. As expected, the degradation of the PS is carried out by the intestinal bacteria of the animal (Figure 9). It has been demonstrated because degradation stops when administering antibiotics to the larva (Yang et al 2015). One of the isolated bacteria that has been shown to degrade PS is Exiguobacterium, from Bacillales group, but it is not the only one. In fact, when performing studies of metagenomics from gut of larvae eating PS, a large variety of bacteria have been found, and these vary depending on the kind of plastic, since the degradation of polyethylene has also been seen. Some of the bacteria with DNA found as predominant would be the enterobacteria Citrobacter and Kosakonia. It seems that the intestinal microbiota of Tenebrio is modified and adapted to the different ingested plastics (Brandon et al 2018).

F9 fig Abs Yang 2015 2

Figure 9. Biodegradation of polystyrene by the intestinal bacteria of Tenebrio, the mealworm (Yang et al 2015).

 

Finally, as we see the microbial biodegradation of non-biodegradable or recalcitrant plastics should not surprise us, since on the one hand, there are natural “plastics” such as polyhydroxybutyrate or polylactic acid that are easily degradable (Shah et in 2008), and on the other hand the adaptive capacity of the microorganisms to be able to break the most recalcitrant chemical bonds is very large. Microbes evolve rapidly, and acquire better strategies to break the plastics made by humans (Patel 2018). We have seen in this case the degradation of PET, which in less than 70 years some microbes have already found a way to take advantage of it.

The problem is that we are generating too much plastic waste in no time and the microorganisms have not had time yet to degrade them. It is clear that we will have to help our microbial partners, not generating more degrading polymers, and recycling and degrading them, by using these same degrading microbes, among other ways.

Bibliography

Austin HP et al (2018) Characterization and engineering of a plastic-degrading aromatic polyesterase. Proc Nat Acad Sci 115, 19, E4350-E4357

Brandon AM et al (2018) Biodegradation of Polyethylene and Plastic Mixtures in Mealworms (Larvae of Tenebrio molitor) and Effects on the Gut Microbiome. Environ Sci Technol 52, 6526-6533

Griggs MB (2017 april 24) These caterpillars chow down on plastic bags. Popular Science. http://www.popsci.com

Howard GT (2002) Biodegradation of polyurethane: a review. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 42, 213-220

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PET_bottle_recycling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_terephthalate

Patel NV (2018 april 17) Scientists stumbled upon a plastic-eating bacterium – then accidentally made it stronger. Popular Science. http://www.popsci.com

Russell JR et al (2011) Biodegradation of polyester polyurethane by endophytic fungi. Appl Environ Microbiol 77, 17, 6076-6084

Sampedro J (2016 marzo 10) Descubierta una bacteria capaz de comerse un plástico muy común. El País

Shah AA et al (2008) Biological degradation of plastics: a comprehensive review. Biotechnol Adv 26, 246-265

Tanasupawat et al (2016) Ideonella sakaiensissp. nov., isolated from a microbial consortium that degrades poly(ethylene terephtalate). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 66, 2813-2818

Yang et al (2015) Biodegradation and mineralization of polystyrene by plastic-eating mealworms: Part 2. Role of gut microorganisms. Environ Sci Technol 49, 12087-12093

Yoshida et al (2016) A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science 351,1196–1199

A new probiotic modulates gut microbiota against hepatocellular carcinoma

24th August 2016

Over the last years the beneficial effects of the human intestinal microbiota on various health markers have been displayed, such as inflammation, immune response, metabolic function and weight. The importance of these symbiotic bacteria of ours has been proved. You can see these other posts related with our microbiota: “The good clostridia avoid us from allergies“, “Gut bacteria controlling what we eat” or “Good bacteria of breast milk

At the same time it has been seen that probiotics can be a good solution for many diseases with affected gut microbiota. Indeed, the beneficial role of probiotics to reduce gastrointestinal inflammation and prevent colorectal cancer has been proven.

However, recently it has been found that probiotics may have beneficial effects in other parts of the body beyond the gastrointestinal tract, particularly with immunomodulatory effects on an hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this way, researchers at the University of Hong Kong, along with other from University of Eastern Finland, have published a study (Li et al, PNAS, 2016), where they have seen reductions of 40% in weight and size of HCC liver tumours in mice which were administered with a new mixture of probiotics, “Prohep.”

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of liver cancer is the 2nd most deadly cancers, and it is quite abundant in areas with high rates of hepatitis. In addition, sorafenib, the drug most widely used to reduce the proliferation of tumour, is very expensive. The cost of this multikinase inhibitor is €3400 for 112 tablets of 200 mg, the recommended treatment of four pills a day for a month. Instead, any treatment with probiotics that would proved to be effective and could replace this drug would be much cheaper.

The new probiotics mix Prohep consists of several bacteria: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (ECN) and the whole inactivated by heat VSL#3 (1: 1: 1) containing Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacterium breve, Bf. longum, Bf. infantis, Lb. acidophilus, Lb. plantarum, Lb. paracasei and Lb. delbrueckii.

In the mentioned work, Li et al. (2016) fed mice with Prohep for a week before inoculating them with a liver tumour, and observed a 40% reduction in tumour weight and size in comparison to control animals. As shown in Figure 1, the effect was significant at 35 days, and also for those who were given the Prohep the same day of tumour inoculation. Obviously, the effect of tumour reduction was much more evident when the antitumour compound Cisplatin was administered.

These researchers saw that tumour reduction was due to the inhibition of angiogenesis. This is the process that generates new blood vessels from existing ones, something essential for tumour growth. In relation to the tumour reduction, high levels of GLUT-1 + hypoxic were found. That meant that there was hypoxia caused by the lower blood flow to the tumour, since this was 54% lower in comparison to controls.

 

Fig 1 Li-Fig1B tumor size - days tumor

Figure 1. Change in tumour size. ProPre: administration of Prohep one week before tumour inoculation; ProTreat: administration of Prohep the same day of tumour inoculation; Cisplatin: administration of this antitumoral. (Fig 1B from Li et al, 2016).

 

These authors also determined that there was a smaller amount of pro-inflammatory angiogenic factor IL-17 and of Th17 cells of the immune system, cells also associated with cancer. The lower inflammation and angiogenesis could limit the tumour growth.

Moreover, these researchers established that the beneficial effects of probiotics administration were associated with the abundance of beneficial bacteria in the mice gut microbiota, analysed by metagenomics. So, probiotics modulate microbiota, favouring some gut bacteria, which produce anti-inflammatory metabolites such as cytokine IL-10 and which suppress the Th17 cell differentiation.

 

Fig 2 gut microbiota Eye of Science

Figure 2. Bacteria of the human intestinal microbiota seen by scanning electron microscope (SEM) (coloured image of Eye of Science / Science Source)

 

Some of the bacteria identified by metagenomics in the microbiota of mice that were administered with Prohep were Prevotella and Oscillibacter. The first is a bacteroidal, gram-negative bacterium, which is abundant in the microbiota of rural African child with diets rich in carbohydrates. Oscillibacter is a gram-positive clostridial, known in humans as a producer of the neurotransmitter GABA. Both are an example of the importance of some clostridial and bacteroidals in the gut microbiota. In fact, they are majority there, and although they are not used as probiotics, are found increasingly more positive functions, such as avoiding allergies (see “The good clostridia avoid us from allergies“).

It is known that these bacteria produce anti-inflammatory metabolites and therefore they would be the main involved in regulating the activity of immune cells that cause tumour growth. The observed reduction of tumour in these experiments with mice would be the result of combined effect of these administered probiotic bacteria together with the microbiota itself favoured by them. We see a potential outline of these actions in Figure 3.

Fig 3 Sung fig 2

Figure 3. Simplified diagram of the possible mechanisms of gut bacteria influencing on the polarization of Th17 cells in the lamina propria of the intestinal mucosa. The microbiota bacteria activate dendritic cells, which secrete cytokines (IL-22, IL-23, IL-27). The bacteria can promote Th17 immunity inducing IL-23, which can be involved by means of TLR ligands signal or extracellular ATP or serum amyloid A (SAA). Meanwhile, some probiotic strains could inhibit the development of Th17 by means of the production of IL-12 and IL-27, in addition to promoting the growth and colonization of the bacteria that induce Th17 (Sung et al 2012, Fig. 2).

 

Although we know that the cancer progression is a very complex process and that in the tumour microenvironments there is an infiltration of many different types of immune system cells, such as T cells, neutrophils, killer cells, macrophages etc, the Th17 helper cell subpopulation appears to be prevailing in the tumour progression, and therefore these effects of probiotics and microbiota open good prospects.

It is still early to say whether these findings will contribute to the treatment of human liver cancer, and therefore research in humans is needed, in order to see if these probiotics could be used as such or in tandem with some drug, depending on the tumour stage and size. In any case, all this opens a new range of possibilities for research of the molecular mechanisms of the beneficial effects of probiotics beyond the intestinal tract.

 

Bibliography

El-Nezami H (2016 april 27) HKU develops novel probiotic mixture “Prohep” that may offer potential therapeutic effects on liver cancer. The University of Hong Kong (HKU) 27 Apr 2016

El-Nezamy H, Lee PY, Huang J, Sung YJ (2015) Method and compositions for treating cancer using probiotics. Patent WO 2015021936 A1

Li J, Sung CYJ, Lee N, Ni Y, Pihlajamäki J, Panagiotou G, El-Nezami H (2016) Probiotics modulated gut microbiota suppresses hepatocellular carcinoma growth in mice. PNAS E1306-E1315

Oelschlaeger TA (2010) Mechanisms of probiotic actions – A review. Int J Med Microbiol 300, 57-62

Packham C (2016) Probiotics dramatically modulate liver cancer growth in mice. Medical Press, Med Research 23 Feb 2016

Silgailis M (2016) Treating some cancers with probiotics in the future ? Probiotic Prohep. Lacto Bacto: Health, Microbes and More 23 Feb 2016

Sung CYJ, Lee NP, El-Nezami H (2012) Regulation of T helper by bacteria: an approach for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Hepatology ID439024, doi:10.1155/2012/439024

UEF News and Events (2016) A novel probiotic mixture may offer potential therapeutic effects on hepatocellular carcinoma. University of Eastern Finland 1 Mar 2016

 

Human skin microbiota partly shared with our dog

December 25th, 2015

 

Diversity of the human microbiota in different parts of the body and between individuals

As I have commented in previous posts of this blog (Good Clostridia in our gut March 21st, 2015; Bacteria controlling what we eat October 12th, 2014; Bacteria of breast milk February 3rd, 2013), it becomes increasingly clear the importance of our microbiota, id est, all the micro-organisms, especially bacteria, with which we live.

The human microbiota varies from one individual to another, in relation to diet, age and the own genetic and phenotypic characteristics. Moreover, since we do not live isolated, there is also the influence of the environment, and of other people with we live, including our pets, dogs and others. They all have also their own microbiota.

The human body is home to many different microorganisms: bacteria (and archaea), fungi and viruses, that live on the skin, in the gut and in several other places in the body (Figure 1). While many of these microbes are beneficial to their human host, we know little about most of them. Early research focused on the comparison of the microorganisms found in healthy individuals with those found in people suffering from a particular disease. More recently, researchers have been interested in the more general issues, such as understanding how the microbiota is established and knowing the causes of the similarities and differences between the microbiota of different individuals.

Fig 1 Marsland

Figure 1. Types of microorganisms that live in different parts of the human body: bacteria (large circles), fungi (small circles right) and viruses (small circles left) (Marsland & Gollwitzer 2014)

 

Now we know that communities of microorganisms that are found in the gut of genetically related people tend to be more similar than those of people who are not related. Moreover, microbial communities found in the gut of unrelated adults living in the same household are more similar than those of unrelated adults living in different households (Yatsunenko et al 2012). However, these studies have focused on the intestine, and little is known about the effect of the relationship, cohabitation and age in microbiota of other parts of the body, such as skin.

 

Human skin microbiota

The skin is an ecosystem of about 1.8 m2 of various habitats, with folds, invaginations and specialized niches that hold many types of microorganisms. The main function of the skin is to act as a physical barrier, protecting the body from potential attacks by foreign organisms or toxic substances. Being also the interface with the external environment, skin is colonized by microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, viruses and mites (Figure 2). On its surface there are proteobacteria, propionibacteria, staphylococci and some fungi such as Malassezia (an unicellular basidiomycetous). Mites such as Demodex folliculorum live around the hair follicles. Many of these microorganisms are harmless and often they provide vital functions that the human genome has not acquired by evolution. The symbiotic microorganisms protect human from other pathogenic or harmful microbes. (Grice & Segre 2011).

Fig 2 Grice

Figure 2. Schematic cross section of human skin with the different microorganisms (Grice & Segre 2011).

 

According to the commented diversity of microbiota, this is also very different depending on the region of skin (Figure 3), and therefore depending on the different microenvironments, that can be of three different characteristics: sebaceous or oily, wet and dry.

 

Fig 3 Grice

Figure 3. Topographic distribution of bacterial types in different parts of the skin (Grice & Segre 2011)

 

The skin is a complex network (structural, hormonal, nervous, immune and microbial) and in this sense it has been proven that the resident microbiota collaborates with the immune system, especially in the repair of wounds (Figure 4). As we see, particularly the lipopotheicoic acid (LTA), compound of the bacterial cell wall, can be released by Staphylococcus epidermidis and stimulates Toll-like receptors TLR2, which induce the production of antimicrobial peptides, and also stimulate epidermal keratinocytes via TLR3, which trigger the inflammation with production of interleukin and attracting leukocytes (Heath & Carbone 2013). All this to ensure the homeostatic protection and the defence against the potential pathogens. More information in the review of Belkaid & Segre (2014).

 

Fig 4 Heath Fig1 ni.2680-F1

Figure 4. Contribution of the resident microbiota to the immunity and wound repair (Heath & Carbone 2013)

At home we share microbiota, and with the dog

As mentioned earlier, environment influences the microbiota of an individual, and therefore, individuals who live together tend to share some of the microbiota. Indeed, it was recently studied by Song et al (2013), with 159 people and 36 dogs from 60 families (couples with children and / or dogs). They study the microbiota of gut, tongue and skin. DNA was extracted from a total of 1076 samples, amplifying the V2 region of the 16S rRNA gene with specific primers, and then it was proceeded to multiplex sequencing of high performance (High-Throughput Sequencing) with an Illumina GA IIx equipment. Some 58 million sequences were obtained, with an average of 54,000 per sample, and they were analysed comparing with databases to find out what kind of bacteria and in what proportions.

The results were that the microbial communities were more similar to each other in individuals who live together, especially for the skin, rather than the bowel or the tongue. This was true for all comparisons, including pairs of human and dog-human pairs. As shown in Figure 5, the number of bacterial types shared between different parts was greater (front, palms and finger pulps dog) of the skin of humans and their own dog (blue bars) than the human with dogs of other families (red bars), or dogs with people without dogs (green bars). We also see that the number of shared bacterial types is much lower when compared faecal samples or the tongue (Song et al 2013).

Fig 5 Song

Figure 5. Numbers of bacterial phylotypes (phylogenetic types) shared between adults and their dogs (blue), adults with other dogs (red) and adults who do not have dogs with dogs. There are compared (dog-human) fronts, hands, legs pulps, and also faecal samples (stool) and tongues. Significance of being different: *p<0.05, **p<0.001 (Song et al 2013)

 

This suggests that humans probably take a lot of microorganisms on the skin by direct contact with the environment and that humans tend to share more microbes with individuals who are in frequent contact, including their pets. Song et al. (2013) also found that, unlike what happens in the gut, microbial communities in the skin and tongue of infants and children were relatively similar to those of adults. Overall, these findings suggest that microbial communities found in the intestine change with age in a way that differs significantly from those found in the skin and tongue.

Although is not the main reason for this post, briefly I can say that the overall intestinal microbiota of dogs is not very different from humans in numbers (1011 per gram) and diversity, although with a higher proportion of Gram-positive (approx. 60% clostridial, 12% lactobacilli, 3% bifidobacteria and 3% corynebacteria) in dogs, and less Gram-negative (2% Bacteroides, 2% proteobacteria) (García-Mazcorro Minamoto & 2013).

 

Less asthma in children living with dogs

Although the relationship with the microbiota has not fully been demonstrated, some evidence of the benefits of having a dog has been shown recently, and for the physical aspects, not just for the psychological ones. Swedish researchers (Fall et al 2015) have carried out a study of all new-borns (1 million) in Sweden since 2001 until 2010, counting those suffering asthma at age 6. As the Swedes also have registered all dogs since 2001, these researchers were able to link the presence of dogs at home during the first year of the baby with the onset of asthma or no in children, and have come to the conclusion that children have a lower risk of asthma (50% less) if they have grown in the presence of a dog.

Similar results were obtained for children raised on farms or in rural environments, and thus having contact with other animals. All this would agree with the “hygiene hypothesis”, according to which the lower incidence of infections in Western countries, especially in urban people, would be the cause for increased allergic and autoimmune diseases (Okada et al 2010). In line with the hypothesis, it is believed that the human immune system benefits from living with dogs or other animals due to the sharing of the microbiota. However, in these Swede children living with dogs and having less risk of asthma there was detected a slight risk of pneumococcal disease. This links to the aforementioned hypothesis: more infections and fewer allergies (Steward 2015), but with the advantage that infections are easily treated or prevented with vaccines.

Fig 0 stray-dog-saves-baby

References

Belkaid Y, Segre JA (2014) Dialogue between skin microbiota and immunity. Science 346, 954-959

Fall T, Lundholm C, Örtqvist AK, Fall K, Fang F, Hedhammar Å, et al (2015) Early Exposure to Dogs and Farm Animals and the Risk of Childhood Asthma. JAMA Pediatrics 69(11), e153219

García-Mazcorro JF, Minamoto Y (2013) Gastrointestinal microorganisms in cats and dogs: a brief review. Arch Med Vet 45, 111-124

Heath WR, Carbone FR (2013) The skin-resident and migratory immune system in steady state and memory: innate lymphocytes, dendritic cells and T cells. Nature Immunology 14, 978-985

Marsland BJ, Gollwitzer ES (2014) Host–microorganism interactions in lung diseases. Nature Reviews Immunology 14, 827-835

Okada H, Kuhn C, Feillet H, Bach JF (2010) The “hygiene hypothesis” for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update. Clin Exp Immunol 160, 1-9

Song SJ, Lauber C, Costello EK, Lozupone, Humphrey G, Berg-Lyons D, et al (2013) Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs. eLife 2, e00458, 1-22

Steward D (2015) Dogs, microbiomes, and asthma risk: do babies need a pet ? MD Magazine, Nov 03

Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, Dominguez-Bello MG, Contreras M, et al. 2012. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 486, 222–7

 

 

The giant panda is herbivore but has the gut microbiota of a carnivore

September 30th, 2015

The giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca, literally Greek for “white and black cat feet”) is one of the most intriguing evolutionary mammal species. Despite its exclusively herbivorous diet, phylogenetically it is like a bear because it belongs to Ursids family, order Carnivores. Its diet is 99% bamboo and the other 1% is honey, eggs, fish, oranges, bananas, yams and leaves of shrubs.

It lives in a mountain area in central China, mainly in Sichuan province, and also in provinces of Shaanxi and Gansu. Due to the construction of farms, deforestation and other development, the panda has been driven out of the lowland where he lived. It is an endangered species that needs protection. There are about 300 individuals in captivity and 3000 in freedom. Although the numbers are increasing, it is still endangered, particularly due to its limited space (20,000 km2) and its very specific habitat (bamboo forests).

Fig0 panda bamboo

Thus, the giant panda has an almost exclusive diet of different species of bamboo, mainly the very fibrous leaves and stems, and buds in spring and summer. It is therefore a poor quality -digestive diet, with little protein and plenty of fibre and lignin content. They spend about 14 hours a day eating and can ingest about 12 kg of bamboo a day.

Most herbivores have modifications of the digestive tract that help them to retain the food in digestion process and contain microbial populations that allow them to eat exclusively plant materials, rich in complex polysaccharides such as cellulose and hemicellulose. These specializations may be compartmentalization of the stomach of ruminants and other typical non-ruminants (kangaroos, hamster, hippopotamus and some primates) or enlargement of the large intestine, characteristic of equines, some rodents and lagomorphs (rabbits and hares).

However, despite his exclusively herbivorous diet, surprisingly the giant panda has a typical carnivorous gastrointestinal tract, anatomically similar to dog, cat or raccoon, with a simple stomach, a degenerated caecum and a very short colon. The gastrointestinal tract of pandas is about 4 times the size of the body, such as other carnivores, whereas herbivores have about 10-20 times the size of the body, to efficiently digest large amounts of forage. With this, the panda intestinal transit time is very short, less than 12 hours. This severely limits the ability of potential fermentation of plant materials (Williams et al. 2013).

For these reasons, the digestion of bamboo for panda is very inefficient, despite their dependency. Pandas consume the equivalent of 6% of their body weight per day, with a 20% digestibility of dry matter of bamboo. Of this, 10% corresponds to the low protein content of bamboo, and the rest are polysaccharides, particularly with coefficients of digestion of 27% for hemicellulose and 8% for the pulp.

It seems as if the giant panda would have specialized in the use of a plant with high fibre content without having modified the digestive system, by means of an efficient chewing, swallowing large quantities, digesting the contents of cells instead of plant cell walls, and quickly excreting undigested waste (Dierenfield et al. 1982).

In addition, having a dependency on one type of plant such as bamboo can lead to nutritional deficiencies depending on seasonal cycles of the plant. In this regard, recently Nie et al. (2015) have studied the concentrations of calcium, phosphorus and nitrogen from different parts of the bamboo that a population of free pandas eat. They have seen that pandas in their habitat have a seasonal migration in two areas of different altitudes throughout the year and that fed two different species of bamboo. Both species have more calcium in the leaves and more phosphorus and nitrogen in the stems. As the seasonal variation in appearance and fall of leaves of two species is different due to the different altitude, when pandas are in one of the areas eat the leaves of a species and stems of the other while they do the reverse when they are in the other zone. So, pandas synchronize their seasonal migrations in order to get nutritionally the most out of both species of bamboo.

Another drawback of the bamboo dependence is flowering. It is a natural phenomenon that happens every 40-100 years, and when bamboo flowers, it dies, reducing the availability of food for pandas. During 1970-1980 there were two large-scale blooms in the habitat of pandas, and there were more than 200 deaths for this reason. However, and given that probably pandas have found during their evolution with many other massive blooms, in these occasions they are looking for other species of bamboo or travel long distances to meet their food needs (Wei et al. 2015).

In return, and as adaptation to eat this so specific food, the giant panda has a number of unique morphological features, such as strong jaws and very powerful molars, and especially a pseudo-thumb, like a 6th finger, which is actually a modified enlarged sesamoid bone, as an opposable thumb, which serves to hold bamboo while eating (Figure 1).

Fig1 panda's thumb

Figure 1. The “pseudo-thumb” of giant panda. Image from Herron & Freeman (2014).

And how is that the panda became an herbivore ?

It has been estimated that the precursor of the giant panda, omnivorous as other Ursids, began to eat bamboo at least 7 million years ago (My), and became completely dependent on bamboo between 2 and 2.4 My. This dietary change was probably linked to mutations in the genome, leading to defects in the metabolism of dopamine in relation to the appetite for meat, and especially the pseudogenization of Tas1r1 gene (Figure 2) of umami taste receptor (Jin et al. 2011). The umami is one of the five basic tastes, along with sweet, salty, sour and bitter. Umami is like “pleasant savoury taste”, usually recalls meat, and is related to L-glutamic acid, abundant in meat. This mutation in pandas favoured the loss of appetite for meat and reinforced their herbivore lifestyle. However, other additional factors had probably been involved, since Tas1r1 gene is intact in herbivores such as horses and cows (Zhao et al. 2010).

Fig2 Zhao F1 large

Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree of some carnivores with data for giant panda deduced from fossils (in blue) and from the molecular study of TasTr1 gene made by Zhao et al. (2010).

The intestinal microbiota of giant panda

As expected, when sequencing the complete genome of the giant panda (Li et al. 2010), specific genes responsible for the digestion of cellulose and hemicellulose have not been found. Logically, these complex polysaccharides of bamboo fibres would be possibly digested by cellulolytic microorganisms of the intestinal tract. So, their presence in panda must be studied.

When studying the sequences of 16S ribosomal DNA from faecal microbiota of various mammals, an increase in bacterial diversity is generally observed in sense carnivores – omnivores – herbivores (Ley et al. 2008). This diversity is lower in the panda than in herbivores, and as shown in Figure 3, pandas are grouped with carnivores (red circles) despite being herbivorous from the diet point of view.

Fig3 Ley

Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PC) of faecal bacterial communities from mammals with different colours according to the predominant diet (Law et al. 2008)

The intestinal microbiota of most herbivores contains anaerobic bacteria mainly from groups of Bacteroides, Clostridials, Spirochetes and Fibrobacterials, that have enzymatic ability to degrade fibrous plant material and thus provide nutrients for its guests. Instead, omnivores and carnivores have a particularly dominant microbiota of facultative anaerobes, such as Enterobacteriaceae, besides some Firmicutes, including lactobacilli and some Clostridials and Bacteroides.

As for the giant panda, the first studies made with culture-dependent methods and analysis of amplified 16S rRNA genes (Wii et al. 2007) identified Enterobacteriaceae and Streptococcus as predominant in the intestinal microbiota. Therefore, this study suggests that the microbiota of panda is very similar to that of carnivores, as we see in the mentioned comparative study with various mammals (Law et al. 2008), and therefore with little ability to use cellulose or hemicellulose.

However, a later study done with sequencing techniques of 16S (Zhu et al. 2011) from faecal samples of 15 giant pandas arrived at very different conclusions and it seemed that they found the first evidence of cellulose digestion by microbiota of giant panda. In 5500 sequences analysed, they found 85 different taxa, of which 83% were Firmicutes (Figure 4), and among these there were 13 taxa of Clostridium (7 of them exclusive of pandas) and some of these with ability to digest cellulose. In addition, in metagenomic analysis of some of the pandas some putative genes for enzymes to digest cellulose, xylans and beta-glucosidase-1,4-beta-xilosidase for these Clostridium were found. Altogether, they concluded that the microbiota of the giant panda had a moderate degradation capacity of cellulose materials.

Fig4 Zhu 2011-Fig1C

Figure 4. Percentage of sequences of the main bacterial groups found in faecal samples from wild individuals of giant panda (W1-W7) and captive (C1-C8), according to Zhu et al. (2011). Under each individual the n. sequences analysed is indicated.

But just three months ago a work (Xue et al. 2015) has been published that seems to go back, concluding that the intestinal microbiota of the giant panda is very similar to that of carnivores and have little of herbivores. It is an exhaustive study of last-generation massive sequencing of 16S rRNA genes of faecal samples from 121 pandas of different ages over three seasons. They obtained some 93000 sequences corresponding to 781 different taxa.

They found a predominance of Enterobacteriaceae and Streptococcus (dark red and dark blue respectively, Figure 5A) and very few representatives of probable cellulolitics as Clostridials. Moreover, these are not increased when more leaves and stems of bamboo are available (stage T3). These results correspond with what was already known of the low number of genes of cellulases and hemicellulases (2%), even lower than in the human microbiome. This negligible contribution of microbial digestion of cellulose, together with the commented fact that the panda is quite inefficient digesting bamboo, contradicts the hypothetical importance of digestion by the microbiota that had suggested a few years earlier, as we have seen before.

In addition, in this work a lot of variety in composition of microbiota between individuals has been found (Figure 5 B).

Fig5 Xue F1 large

Figure 5. Composition of the intestinal microbiota from 121 giant pandas, with (A) the dominant genera in all samples and (B) the relative contribution of each individual dominant genera, grouped by age and sampling time (Xue et al. 2015).

In this paper, a comparative analysis between the compositions of the intestinal microbiota of giant panda with other mammals has been made, and it has confirmed that the panda is grouped again with carnivores and is away from herbivores (Figure 6).

Fig6 Xue Fig4

Figure 6. Principal component analysis (PCoA) of microbiota communities from faecal samples of 121 giant pandas (blank forms), compared with other herbivores (green), omnivores (blue) and carnivores (red). The different forms correspond to different works: the circles are from Xue et al. (2015), where this Figure has been obtained.

All in all, the peculiar characteristics of the giant panda microbiota contribute to the extinction danger of this animal. Unlike most other mammals that have evolved their microbiota and digestive anatomies optimizing them for their specific diets, the aberrant coevolution of panda, its microbiota and its particular diet is quite enigmatic. To clarify it and know how to preserve this threatened animal, studies must be continued, combining metagenomics, metatranscriptomics, metaproteomics and meta-metabolomics, in order to know well the structure and metabolism of gut microbiota and its relationship with digestive functions and the nutritional status of the giant panda (Xue et al. 2015).

References

Dierenfield ES, Hintz HF, Robertson JB, Van Soest PJ, Oftedal OT (1982) Utilization of bamboo by the giant panda. J Nutr 112, 636-641

Herron JC, Freeman S (2014) Evolutionary Analysis, 5th ed. Benjamin Cummings

Jin K, Xue C, Wu X, Qian J, Zhu Y et al. (2011) Why Does the Giant Panda Eat Bamboo? A Comparative Analysis of Appetite-Reward-Related Genes among Mammals. PLos One 6, e22602

Ley RE, Hamady M, Lozupone C, Turnbaugh PJ, Ramey RR et al. (2008) Evolution of Mammals and Their Gut Microbes. Science 320, 1647-1651

Li R, Fan W, Tian G, Zhu H, He L et 117 al. (2010) The sequence and de novo assembly of the giant panda genome. Nature 463, 311–317

Nie Y, Zhang Z, Raubenheimer D, Elser JJ, Wei W, Wei F (2015) Obligate herbivory in an ancestrally carnivorous lineage: the giant panda and bamboo from the perspective of nutritional geometry. Functional Ecology 29, 26–34

Rosen M (2015) Pandas’ gut bacteria resemble carnivores. Science News 19/05/2015

Wei G, Lu H, Zhou Z, Xie H, Wang A, Nelson K, Zhao L (2007) The microbial community in the feces of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) as determined by PCR-TGGE profiling and clone library analysis. Microb Ecol 54, 194–202

Wei F, Hu Y, Yan L, Nie Y, Wu Q, Zhang Z (2014) Giant Pandas Are Not an Evolutionary cul-de-sac: Evidence from Multidisciplinary Research. Mol Biol Evol 32, 4-12

Williams CL, Willard S, Kouba A, Sparks D, Holmes W et al. (2013) Dietary shifts affect the gastrointestinal microflora of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 97, 577-585

Xue Z, Zhang W, Wang L, Hou R, Zhang M et al. (2015) The bamboo-eating giant panda harbors a carnivore-like gut microbiota, with excessive seasonal variations. mBio 6(3), e00022-15

Zhao H, Yang JR, Xu H, Zhang J (2010) Pseudogenization of the Umami Taste Receptor Gene Tas1r1 in the Giant Panda Coincided with its Dietary Switch to Bamboo. Mol Biol Evol 27(12), 2669–2673

Zhu LF, Wu Q, Dai JY, Zhang SN, Wei FW (2011) Evidence of cellulose metabolism by the giant panda gut microbiome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108, 17714–17719.

Bacteria of vineyard and terroir, and presence of Oenococcus in Priorat (South Catalonia) grapes

2nd May 2015 

The vine growers believe that the land on which they grow vines gives the wines a unique quality, and that is called terroir. We can consider that the physiological response of the vines to the type of soil and climatic conditions, together with the characteristics of the variety and form of cultivation, result in a wine organoleptic properties that define their terroir (Zarraonaindia et al 2015 ). However, it is not known if there could be a very specific microbiota of each terroir, as this subject has been barely studied.

Wine microorganisms in the grapes? Saccharomyces is not there or it has not been found there

The main protagonists of wine fermentations, alcoholic one (yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and malolactic one (lactic acid bacteria Oenococcus oeni) usually do not appear until the must grape is fermenting to wine, in the cellar. In normal healthy grapes, S. cerevisiae is hardly found.

Oenococcus oeni in the grapes ? We have found it !

Regarding O. oeni, so far very little has been published about its presence and isolation from the grapes. In some works, as Sieiro et al (1990), or more recently Bae et al (2006), some lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have been isolated from the surface of grapes, but not O. oeni. Only Garijo et al (2011) were able to isolate a colony (only one) of O. oeni from Rioja grapes. Moreover, DNA of O. oeni has been detected in a sample of grapes from Bordeaux (Renouf et al 2005, Renouf et al 2007) by PCR-DGGE of rpoB gene, although in these works no Oenococcus has been isolated.

I am pleased to mention that recently our team have managed to isolate O. oeni from grapes, and typify them, and we are now working on a publication about it (Franquès et al 2015). Indeed, our research team of lactic acid bacteria (BL-URV), together with colleagues working on yeasts from the same group “Oenological Biotechnology” (Faculty of Oenology at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain) is working on a European project, called “Wildwine “(FP7-SME-2012 -315065), which aims to analyse the autochthonous microorganisms of Priorat area (South Catalonia), and select strains with oenological potential. This project also involves the Priorat Appellation Council and the cellar Ferrer-Bobet, as well as research groups and associations wineries from Bordeaux, Piedmont and Greece. In the framework of this project we took samples of grapes (Grenache and Carignan) from several vineyards of Priorat (Figure 1), as well as samples of wines doing malolactic fermentation. From all them we got 1900 isolates of LAB. We optimized isolation from grapes from the pulp and juice with various methods of enrichment, and so we got 110 isolated bacteria from grapes, identified as O. oeni by specific molecular techniques. Once typified, we have found that the molecular profiles of these strains do not coincide with commercial strains and so they are autochthonous. In addition, some of these strains from grapes were also found in the corresponding wine cellars.

Fig 1 garna-cari Priorat

Figure 1. Taking samples of Grenache (left) and Carignan (right) in Priorat area to isolate lactic acid bacteria such as Oenococcus (Pictures Albert Bordons).


The microbiota of grapes

The grapes have a complex microbial ecology, including yeasts, mycelial fungi and bacteria. Some are found only in grapes, such as parasitic fungi and environmental bacteria, and others have the ability to survive and grow in wines: especially yeasts, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and acetic acid bacteria. The proportion of all them depends on the maturation of the grapes and the availability of nutrients.

When the fruits are intact, the predominant microbiota are basidiomycetous yeasts as Cryptococcus and Rhodotorula, but when they are more mature, they begin to have micro fissures that facilitate the availability of nutrients and explain the predominance just before the harvest of slightly fermentative ascomycetes as Candida, Hanseniaspora, Metschnikowia and Pichia. When the skin is already damaged more damaging yeasts may appear, as Zygosaccharomyces and Torulaspora, and acetic acid bacteria. Among the filamentous fungi occasionally there may have some very harmful as Botrytis (bunch rot) or Aspergillus producing ochratoxin. Although they are active only in the vineyard, their products can affect wine quality.

On the other hand, environmentally ubiquitous bacteria have been isolated from the grapes skin, as various Enterobacteriaceae, Bacillus and Staphylococcus, but none of them can grow in wine (Barata et al 2012).

Coming back to the possible specific microbiota of terroir, it has been found that some volatile compounds contributing to the aroma of the wine, such as 2-methyl butanoic acid and 3-methyl butanol, are produced by microorganisms isolated in the vineyards, as Gram-positive bacterium Paenibacillus, or the basidiomycetous fungus Sporobolomyces or the ascomycetous Aureobasidium. Therefore, there could be a relationship between some of the microbial species found in grapes and some detected aromas in wine, coming from the must of course (Verginer et al 2010).

Metagenomics as analytical tool of microbiota from grapes

Since conventional methods of isolation and cultivation of microorganisms are slow, laborious and some microbes cannot be grown up in the usual isolation media, massive sequencing methods or metagenomics are currently used. These consist of analysing all the DNA of a sample, and deducing which are the present microorganisms by comparing the sequences found with those of the databases. For bacteria the amplified DNA of V4 fragment from 16S RNA gene is used (Caporaso et al 2012).

This technique has been used with samples of botrytized wines (Bokulich et al 2012) and various LAB have been found (but not Oenococcus), including some not normally associated with wine. It has also been used to see the resident microbiota in wineries and how it changes with the seasons, resulting that in the surfaces of tanks and machinery of the cellar there is a majority of microorganisms neither related with wine nor harmful (Bokulich et al 2013).

With this technique Bokulich et al (2014) have also analysed the grapes and they have seen clear differences between the proportions of bacterial groups (and fungi) from different places, different varieties, as well as environmental or bio geographical conditions. For example, when analysing 273 samples of grape musts from California, the 3 varieties (Cabernet, Chardonnay and Zinfandel) are quite discriminated in a principal components analysis with respect to the bacterial communities found in each sample (Figure 2).

Thus, the dominant bacterial taxa or groups in a variety or given environment could provide some specifics traits on those wines, and this could explain some regional or terroir patterns in the organoleptic properties of these wines (Bokulich et al 2014).

Fig 2 ACP Bokulich 2014

Figure 2. Principal component analysis of bacterial communities of grape musts samples of Sonoma (California) from 3 varieties (Cabernet in red, Chardonnay in green and Zinfandel in blue) (Bokulich et al 2014).


We have also carried out a massive sequencing study with the same grape samples from which we have obtained isolates of O. oeni, as said before (Franquès et al 2015), and in more than 600,000 analysed sequences of 16S rRNA, we have found mainly Proteobacteria and Firmicutes. Among these gram-positive, we have found sequences of lactic acid bacteria (15%) and from these we have successfully confirmed the presence of O. oeni in 5% of the sequences. Therefore, we have isolated O. oeni from grapes and we have detected their DNA in the samples.

The bacterial microbiota of the vineyards and soil

As we see, microbiota of grapes and wine has been studied a little, but the soil microbiota has not been characterized. This one can define more clearly the terroir, which is influenced by the local climate and characteristics of the vineyard.

In Figure 3 the main genera found in different parts of the vine and soil are summarized (Gilbert et al 2014).

Fig 3 Gilbert 2014

Figure 3. Main bacteria and fungi associated with organs and soil of Vitis vinifera (Gilbert et al 2014)


Recently an interesting scientific work (Zarraonaindia et al 2015) has been published on this subject, with the aim to see if the soil could be the main original source of bacteria that colonize the grapes. These authors took samples of soil, roots, leaves, flowers and grapes from Merlot vines, from different areas and years, of Suffolk, New York, and they analysed the bacterial DNA by 16S rRNA sequencing. They found that 40% of the species found were present in all samples of soil and roots, while there was more variability in leaves and fruits, and moreover, 40% of those found in leaves and fruits were also found in soils. All this suggests that many bacteria originate in the soil.

Regarding the type of bacteria, they found that Proteobacteria (especially Pseudomonas and Methylobacterium) predominated (Figure 4), mainly in the aerial parts of the plant. There were also Firmicutes as expected, and Acidobacteria and Bacteroides.

Fig 4 microbiota vineyard

Figure 4. Composition of the bacterial community, at Phylum level, in samples from different organs of the vine and its soil (Zarraonaindia et al 2015).


Although variations were observed in all samples depending on the year (there may be different climatic conditions) and according to different edaphic factors (pH, C: N, humidity), the principal-components analysis (Figure 5) showed that the main types of samples (soil, roots, leaves, grapes) differ quite well, and bacterial taxon composition in samples of grape juice before fermentation is similar to that of grapes.

Fig 5 distribució grups mostres OTUs

Figure 5. Principal-components analysis showing the similarities in terms of the composition of bacterial taxonomic groups, among sample types, including musts (Zarraonaindia et al 2015).


This suggests that the bacterial community found in grapes remains relatively stable until the processing to musts, and that it is more stable than the differences between organs. At the same time, a large number of representatives of bacterial phyla of the grapes come from the soil. This can be explained because when grapes are harvested by hand, they are often placed in boxes that are left on the ground, or for mechanical harvest, the machinery used removes the soil and generates dust, which can colonize the grapes.

Therefore, the soil microbiota is a source of bacteria associated with vines and may play a role in the must and therefore in the wine, and potentially in the formation of the terroir characteristics. Some of these bacteria may have some roles not yet known in productivity or disease resistance of the plant, or contribute to the organoleptic characteristics of wine (Zarraonaindia et al 2015).

In addition, and thinking in wine microorganisms responsible for fermentations, as said, in our laboratory we have confirmed that there are some O. oeni strains in grapes and we have confirmed this by detecting their DNA in the same grapes.

References

Bae S, Fleet GH, Heard GM (2006) Lactic acid bacteria associated with wine grapes from several Australian vineyards. J Appl Microbiol 100, 712-727

Barata A, Malfeito-Ferreira M, Loureiro V (2012) The microbial ecology of wine grapes (Review). Int J Food Microbiol 153, 243-259

Bokulich NA, Joseph CML, Allen G, Benson AK, Mills DA (2012) Next-generation sequencing reveals significant bacterial diversity of botrytized wine. Plos One 7, e36357

Bokulich NA, Ohta M, Richardson PM, Mills DA (2013) Monitoring seasonal changes in winery-resident microbiota. Plos One 8, e66437

Bokulich NA, Thorngate JH, Richardson PM, Mills DA (2014) Microbial biogeography of wine grapes is conditioned by cultivar, vintage, and climate. PNAS nov 25, E139-E148

Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Huntley J, Fierer N, Owens SM, Betley J, Fraser L, Bauer M, Gormley N, Gilbert JA, Smith G, Knight R (2012) Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J 6, 1621–1624

Franquès J, Araque I, Portillo C, Reguant C, Bordons A (2015) Presence of autochthonous Oenococcus oeni in grapes and wines of Priorat in South Catalonia. Article in elaboration.

Garijo P, López R, Santamaría P, Ocón E, Olarte C, Sanz S, Gutiérrez AR (2011) Eur Food Res Technol 233, 359-365

Gilbert JA, van der Lelie D, Zarraonaindia I (2014) Microbial terroir for wine grapes. PNAS 111, 5-6

Renouf V, Claisse O, Lonvaud-Funel A (2005) Understanding the microbial ecosystem on the grape berry surface through numeration and identification of yeast and bacteria. Aust J Grape Wine Res 11, 316-327

Renouf V, Claisse O, Lonvaud-Funel A (2007) Inventory and monitoring of wine microbial consortia. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 75, 149-164

Sieiro C, Cansado J, Agrelo D, Velázquez JB, Villa TG (1990) Isolation and enological characterization of malolactic bacteria from the vineyards of North-western Spain. Appl Environ Microbiol 56, 2936-2938

Verginer M, Leitner E, Berg G (2010) Production pf volatile metabolites by grape-associated microorganisms. J Agric Food Chem 58, 8344-8350

Zarraonaindia I, Owens SM, Weisenhorn P, West K, Hampton-Marcell J, Lax S, Bokulich NA, Mills DA, Martin G, Taghavi S, Van der Lelie D, Gilbert JA (2015) The soil microbiome influences grapevine-associated microbiota. mBio 6, e02527-14

We have good clostridia in the gut and some of them prevent allergies

21st March 2015

Clostridia: who are they ?

The clostridia or Clostridiales, with Clostridium and other related genera, are Gram-positive sporulating bacteria. They are obligate anaerobes, and belong to the taxonomic phylum Firmicutes. This phylum includes clostridia, the aerobic sporulating Bacillales (Bacillus, Listeria, Staphylococcus and others) and also the anaerobic aero-tolerant Lactobacillales (id est, lactic acid bacteria: Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Oenococcus, Pediococcus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus, etc.). All Firmicutes have regular shapes of rod or coccus, and they are the evolutionary branch of gram-positive bacteria with low G + C content in their DNA. The other branch of evolutionary bacteria are gram-positive Actinobacteria, of high G + C and irregular shapes, which include Streptomyces, Corynebacterium, Propionibacterium, and Bifidobacterium, among others.

 

flora_cover

 

Being anaerobes, the clostridia have a fermentative metabolism of both carbohydrates and amino acids, being primarily responsible for the anaerobic decomposition of proteins, known as putrefaction. They can live in many different habitats, but especially in soil and on decaying plant and animal material. As we will see below, they are also part of the human intestinal microbiota and of other vertebrates.

The best known clostridia are the bad ones (Figure 1): a) C. botulinum, which produces botulin, the botulism toxin, although nowadays has medical and cosmetic applications (Botox); b) C. perfringens, the agent of gangrene; c) C. tetani, which causes tetanus; and d) C. difficile, which is the cause of hospital diarrhea and some postantibiotics colitis.

 

clostridium_bacteria

Figure 1. The four more pathogen species of Clostridium. Image from http://www.tabletsmanual.com/wiki/read/botulism

 

Clostridia in gut microbiota

As I mentioned in a previous post (Bacteria in the gut …..) of this blog, we have a complex ecosystem in our gastrointestinal tract, and diverse depending on each person and age, with a total of 1014 microorganisms. Most of these are bacteria, besides some archaea methanogens (0.1%) and some eukaryotic (yeasts and filamentous fungi). When classical microbiological methods were carried out from samples of colon, isolates from some 400 microbial species were obtained, belonging especially to proteobacteria (including Enterobacteriaceae, such as E. coli), Firmicutes as Lactobacillus and some Clostridium, some Actinobacteria as Bifidobacterium, and also some Bacteroides. Among all these isolates, some have been recognized with positive effect on health and are used as probiotics, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, which are considered GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe).

But 10 years ago culture-independent molecular tools began to be used, by sequencing of ribosomal RNA genes, and they have revealed many more gut microorganisms, around 1000 species. As shown in Figure 2, taken from the good review of Rajilic-Stojanovic et al (2007), there are clearly two groups that have many more representatives than thought before: Bacteroides and Clostridiales.

 

Rajilic 2007 Fig 1

Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree based on 16S rRNA gene sequences of various phylotypes found in the human gastrointestinal tract. The proportion of cultured or uncultured phylotypes for each group is represented by the colour from white (cultured) passing through grey to black (uncultured). For each phylogenetic group the number of different phylotypes is indicated (Rajilic-Stojanovic et al 2007)

 

In more recent studies related to diet such as Walker et al (2011) — a work done with faecal samples from volunteers –, population numbers of the various groups were estimated by quantitative PCR of 16S rRNA gene. The largest groups, with 30% each, were Bacteroides and clostridia. Among Clostridiales were included: Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (11%), Eubacterium rectale (7%) and Ruminococcus (6%). As we see the clostridial group includes many different genera besides the known Clostridium.

In fact, if we consider the population of each species present in the human gastrointestinal tract, the most abundant seems to be a clostridial: F. prausnitzii (Duncan et al 2013).

 

Benefits of some clostridia

These last years it has been discovered that clostridial genera of Faecalibacterium, Eubacterium, Roseburia and Anaerostipes (Duncan et al 2013) are those which contribute most to the production of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in the colon. Clostridia ferment dietary carbohydrate that escape digestion producing SCFA, mainly acetate, propionate and butyrate, which are found in the stool (50-100 mM) and are absorbed in the intestine. Acetate is metabolized primarily by the peripheral tissues, propionate is gluconeogenic, and butyrate is the main energy source for the colonic epithelium. The SCFA become in total 10% of the energy obtained by the human host. Some of these clostridia as Eubacterium and Anaerostipes also use as a substrate the lactate produced by other bacteria such as Bifidobacterium and lactic acid bacteria, producing finally also the SCFA (Tiihonen et al 2010).

 

Clostridia of microbiota protect us against food allergen sensitization

This is the last found positive aspect of clostridia microbiota, that Stefka et al (2014) have shown in a recent excellent work. In administering allergens (“Ara h”) of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to mice that had been treated with antibiotics or to mice without microbiota (Germ-free, sterile environment bred), these authors observed that there was a systemic allergic hyper reactivity with induction of specific immunoglobulins, id est., a sensitization.

In mice treated with antibiotics they observed a significant reduction in the number of bacterial microbiota (analysing the 16S rRNA gene) in the ileum and faeces, and also biodiversity was altered, so that the predominant Bacteroides and clostridia in normal conditions almost disappeared and instead lactobacilli were increased.

To view the role of these predominant groups in the microbiota, Stefka et al. colonized with Bacteroides and clostridia the gut of mice previously absent of microbiota. These animals are known as gnotobiotic, meaning animals where it is known exactly which types of microorganisms contain.

In this way, Stefka et al. have shown that selective colonization of gnotobiotic mice with clostridia confers protection against peanut allergens, which does not happen with Bacteroides. For colonization with clostridia, the authors used a spore suspension extracted from faecal samples of healthy mice and confirmed that the gene sequences of the extract corresponded to clostridial species.

So in effect, the mice colonized with clostridia had lower levels of allergen in the blood serum (Figure 3), had a lower content of immunoglobulins, there was no caecum inflammation, and body temperature was maintained. The mice treated with antibiotics which had presented the hyper allergic reaction when administered with antigens, also had a lower reaction when they were colonized with clostridia.

 

fig 4 skefta

Figure 3. Levels of “Ara h” peanut allergen in serum after ingestion of peanuts in mice without microbiota (Germ-free), colonized with Bacteroides (B. uniformis) and colonized with clostridia. From Stefka et al (2014).

 

In addition, in this work, Stefka et al. have conducted a transcriptomic analysis with microarrays of the intestinal epithelium cells of mice and they have found that the genes producing the cytokine IL-22 are induced in animals colonized with clostridia, and that this cytokine reduces the allergen uptake by the epithelium and thus prevents its entry into the systemic circulation, contributing to the protection against hypersensitivity. All these mechanisms, reviewed by Cao et al (2014), can be seen in the diagram of Figure 4.

In conclusion, this study opens new perspectives to prevent food allergies by modulating the composition of the intestinal microbiota. So, adding these anti-inflammatory qualities to the production of butyrate and other SCFA, and the lactate consumption, we must start thinking about the use of clostridia for candidates as probiotics, in addition to the known Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium.

 

fig 4 Cao b

Figure 4. Induction of clostridia on cytokine production by epithelial cells of the intestine, as well as the production of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) by clostridia (Cao et al 2014).

 

References

Cao S, Feehley TJ, Nagler CR (2014) The role of commensal bacteria in the regulation of sensitization to food allergens. FEBS Lett 588, 4258-4266

Duncan SH, Flint HJ (2013) Probiotics and prebiotics and health in ageing populations. Maturitas 75, 44-50

Rajilic-Stojanovic M, Smidt H, de Vos WM (2007) Diversity of the human gastrointestinal tract microbiota revisited. Environ Microbiol 9, 2125-2136

Rosen M (2014) Gut bacteria may prevent food allergies. Science News 186, 7, 4 oct 2014

Russell SL, et al. (2012) Early life antibiotic-driven changes in microbiota enhance 
susceptibility to allergic asthma. EMBO Rep 13(5):440–447

Stefka AT et al (2014) Commensal bacteria protect against food allergen sensitization. Proc Nat Acad Sci 111, 13145-13150

Tiihonen K, Ouwehand AC, Rautonen N (2010) Human intestinal microbiota and healthy aging. Ageing Research Reviews 9:107–16

Walker AW et al (2011) Dominant and diet-responsive groups of bacteria within the human colonic microbiota. The ISME J 5, 220-230

 

 

Bacteria in the gut are controlling what we eat

It seems to be so: the microbes in our gastrointestinal tract (GIT) influence our choice of food. No wonder: microbes, primarily bacteria, are present in significant amounts in GIT, more than 10 bacterial cells for each of our cells, a total of 1014 (The human body has about 1013 cells). This amounts to about 1-1.5 kg. And these bacteria have lived with us always, since all mammals have them. So, they have evolved with our ancestors and therefore they are well suited to our internal environment. Being our bodies their habitat, much the better if they can control what reaches the intestine. And how can they do? Then giving orders to the brain to eat such a thing or that other, appropriate for them, the microbes.

Imagen1Figure 1.Command centre of the gastrointestinal tract” (own assembly,  Albert Bordons)

Well, gone seriously, there is some previous work in this direction. It seems there is a relationship between preferences for a particular diet and microbial composition of GIT (Norris et al 2013). In fact, it is a two-way interaction, one of the many aspects of symbiotic mutualism between us and our microbiota (Dethlefsen et al 2007).

There is much evidence that diet influences the microbiota. One of the most striking examples is that African children fed almost exclusively in sorghum have more cellulolytic microbes than other children (De Filippo et al 2010).

The brain can also indirectly influence the gut microbiota by changes in intestinal motility, secretion and permeability, or directly releasing specific molecules to the gut digestive lumen from the sub epithelial cells (neurons or from the immune system) (Rhee et al 2009).

The GIT is a complex ecosystem where different species of bacteria and other microorganisms must compete and cooperate among themselves and with the host cells. The food ingested by the host (human or other mammal) is an important factor in the continuous selection of these microbes and the nature of food is often determined by the preferences of the host. Those bacteria that are able to manipulate these preferences will have advantages over those that are not (Norris et al 2013).

Recently Alcock et al (2014) have reviewed the evidences of all this. Microbes can manipulate the feeding behaviour of the host in their own benefit through various possible strategies. We’ll see some examples in relation to the scheme of Figure 2.

 

Fig 2 human microbiome behaviour appetite

Figure 2. As if microbes were puppeteers and we humans were the puppets, microbes can control what we eat by a number of marked mechanisms. Adapted from Alcock et al 2014.

 

People who have “desires” of chocolate have different microbial metabolites in urine from people indifferent to chocolate, despite having the same diet.

Dysphoria, id est, human discomfort until we eat food which improve microbial “welfare”, may be due to the expression of bacterial virulence genes and perception of pain by the host. This is because the production of toxins is often triggered by a low concentration of nutrients limiting growth. The detection of sugars and other nutrients regulates virulence and growth of various microbes. These directly injure the intestinal epithelium when nutrients are absent. According to this hypothesis, it has been shown that bacterial virulence proteins activate pain receptors. It has been shown that fasting in mice increases the perception of pain by a mechanism of vagal nerve.

Microbes can also alter food preferences of guests changing the expression of taste receptors on the host. In this sense, for instance germ-free mice prefer more sweet food and have a greater number of sweet receptors on the tongue and intestine that mice with a normal microbiota.

The feeding behaviour of the host can also be manipulated by microbes through the nervous system, through the vagus nerve, which connects the 100 million neurons of the enteric nervous system from the gut to the brain via the medulla. Enteric nerves have receptors that react to the presence of certain bacteria and bacterial metabolites such as short chain fatty acids. The vagus nerve regulates eating behaviour and body weight. It has been seen that the activity of the vagus nerve of rats stimulated with norepinephrine causes that they keep eating despite being satiated. This suggests that GIT microbes produce neurotransmitters that can contribute to overeating.

Neurotransmitters produced by microbes are analogue compounds to mammalian hormones related to mood and behaviour. More than 50% of dopamine and most of serotonin in the body have an intestinal origin. Many persistent and transient inhabitants of the gut, including E. coli, several Bacillus, Staphylococcus and Proteus secrete dopamine. In Table 1 we can see the various neurotransmitters produced by GIT microbes. At the same time, it is known that host enzymes such as amine oxidase can degrade neurotransmitters produced by microorganisms, which demonstrates the evolutionary interactions between microbes and hosts.

 

Table 1. Diversity of neurotransmitters isolated from several microbial species (Roschchina 2010)

Neurotransmitter Genera
GABA (gamma-amino-butyric acid) Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium
Norepinephrine Escherichia, Bacillus, Saccharomyces
Serotonin Candida, Streptococcus, Escherichia, Enterococcus
Dopamine Bacillus, Serratia
Acetylcholine Lactobacillus

 

Some bacteria induce hosts to provide their favourite nutrients. For example, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron inhabits the intestinal mucus, where it feeds on oligosaccharides secreted by goblet cells of the intestine, and this bacterium induces its host mammal to increase the secretion of these oligosaccharides. Instead, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, a not degrading mucus, which is associated with B. thetaiotaomicron, inhibits the mucus production. Therefore, this is an ecosystem with multiple agents that interact with each other and with the host.

As microbiota is easily manipulated by prebiotics, probiotics, antibiotics, faecal transplants, and changes in diet, controlling and altering our microbiota provides a viable method to the otherwise insoluble problems of obesity and poor diet.

 

References

Alcock J, Maley CC, Aktipis CA (2014) Is eating behavior manipulated by the gastrointestinal microbiota? Evolutionary pressures and potential mechanisms. BioEssays 36, DOI: 10.1002/bies.201400071

De Filippo C, Cavalieri D, Di Paola M, Ramazzotti M, et al (2010) Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in children from Europe and rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:14691–6

Dethlefsen L, McFall-Ngai M, Relman DA (2007) An ecological and evolutionary perspective on human-microbe mutualism and disease. Nature 449:811-818

Lyte M (2011) Probiotics function mechanistically as delivery for neuroactive compounds: Microbial endocrinology in teh design and use of probiotics. BioEssays 33:574-581

Norris V, Molina F, Gewirtz AT (2013) Hypothesis: bacteria control host appetites. J Bacteriol 195:411–416

Rhee SH, Pothoulakis C, Mayer EA (2009) Principles and clinical implications of the brain–gut–enteric microbiota axis. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology 6:306-314

Roschchina VV (2010) Evolutionary considerations of neurotransmitters in microbial, plant, and animal cells. In Lyte M, Freestone PPE, eds; Microbial Endocrinology: Interkingdom Signaling in Infectious Disease and Health. New York: Springer. pp. 17–52

Agromicrobiome: microorganisms from the roots of crop plants

All we that studied “Bios” probably remember two known aspects of the symbiotic relationships of plant roots with microorganisms:

1) The bacterial Rhizobium nodules on the roots of legumes (Figure 1). These bacteria, with the nitrogenase complex, are among the few organisms capable of fixing atmospheric N2 transforming it into organic nitrogen, which is used by the plant, and symbiotically, the plant provides organic compounds to the bacteria. Thanks to these bacteria, plants such as legumes do not require nitrogen fertilizers.

Fig1 noduls Rhizobium

Figure 1. Rhizobium nodules

2) The mycorrhizae, that is, the symbiotic relationships between fungi and plant roots. The most commonly known are the mushrooms always associated with some trees (Figure 2), such as the Lactarius sanguifluus associated with pines. In fact, mycorrhizae are present in most plants. Through this symbiosis, the fungi receive organic nutrients of the plant, and this can capture more easily water and mineral nutrients (especially P, Zn and Cu) by means of the fungus. In addition, mycorrhizae increase the resistance of plants to diseases coming from the soil and facilitate them inhabiting badlands.

Fig2 shannon-wright-network

Figure 2. Mycorrhizae of mushrooms with trees. Image from Shannon Wright

But these are only the best known of the symbiotic relationships between microorganisms and plant roots. Indeed, as the soil is full of microorganisms, many of these, including bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa or viruses, are beneficial, symbiotic or otherwise, for the plants. And what is biotechnologically more interesting, more potential applications of these microorganisms to benefit crop plants are being found, which can be a good alternative to the use of fertilizers and pesticides.

Different microorganisms can have direct positive effects on plant nutrition as nitrogen fixation, mineralization of organic compounds, and solubilisation of elements not available to the plant (such as phosphates, K, Fe), but also indirectly positive effects, such as the production of hormones and growth factors, or protection against pathogens (García 2013).

Thus, there is a growing interest in the biological control of plant pathogens. It has been proven that some of these pathogens are inhibited by antibiotics produced by microorganisms in the rhizosphere (Raaijmakers et al 2002). Bacteria are being used (bacterization) for some years in  soil or with seeds or other plant parts, with the aim of improving the growth and health of the plant.

Some of the best known and used bacteria in this sense have been Bacillus and Paenibacillus. Several species of these genera of aerobic spore bacteria are abundant in agricultural soils and can promote plant health in different ways, suppressing pathogens with antibiotic metabolites, stimulating plant defence, facilitating nutrient uptake by the plant, or promoting symbiosis with Rhizobium or with mycorrhizae (McSpadder 2004).

The genus Paenibacillus was reclassified from Bacillus in 1993, and includes P. polymyxa, a species N2 – fixing, which is used in agriculture and horticulture. This and other Paenibacillus species give complex and regular colonial forms in agar, even surprising (Figure 3), which vary according to environmental conditions. For this, a self-organizing and cooperative behaviour between individual bacterial cells is needed, using a system of chemical communication. This bacterial social behaviour would be an evolutive precursor of multicellular organisms.

Fig3 colonies paenibacillus

Figure 3. Colonies of Paenibacillus dendritiformis, 6 cm diameter each, branched (left) and chiral (right) morphotypes. From Wikipedia Creative Commons.

The colonization of plant roots by these bacteria has been demonstrated, and also that they do it by forming biofilms (Figure 4). The inoculation of these bacteria to the roots promotes the growth, as shown in peppers (Figure 5). This appears to be due to the nitrogen fixing bacteria, which increases the formation of plant proteins and chlorophyll, thus increasing photosynthesis and physiological activities. And on the other hand, it has been shown that these bacteria produce siderophores, which facilitate Fe uptake by the plant (Lamsal et al 2012).

Fig4 root tip Paeni

Figure 4. Colonization of Paenibacillus polymyxa and biofilm formation on roots of Arabidopsis thaliana. Adapted from Timmusk et al 2005.

40(4) 07.fm

Figure 5. Promoting growth effect of peppers (Capsicum annuum) by inoculation with Bacillus subtilis (AB17) and Paenibacillus polymyxa (AB15), respect the non-inoculated control. From Lamsal et al. 2012.

Moreover, bacteria such as Paenibacillus can be effective against plant pathogens. For example, it has been shown that a strain of P. lentimorbus (B-30488r) reduces the incidence of disease done by the fungus Alternaria solani in tomato. It has been tested (Figure 6) that after inoculating with Paenibacillus a plant infected with Alternaria, resistance to the fungus was induced in the plant. The bacteria degraded the cell walls of the fungus and also inhibited it by competition of nutrients. In addition, it was found that Paenibacillus has no negative effect on the microbial population in the rhizosphere of tomato (Khan et al 2012). These treatments are a good alternative to the use of fungicides, avoiding the environmental and health problems of these compounds.

Microsoft Word - Fig. 6

Figure 6. Schema of the influence of Paenibacillus lentimorbus B-30488r in the interactions of  tomato plant with Alternaria solani, a fungus pathogen (Khan et al 2012).

Finally, these Paenibacillus can also be useful to avoid the transmission of human pathogens such as Salmonella through the crop plants. Indeed, on the east coast of the USA a few years ago were detected outbreaks of Salmonella on tomatoes due to contamination of water. When they analyzed the microbiome present in the roots of tomatoes and these were compared with those of other places where there were no Salmonella contamination occurred, it was found that these tomatoes of the East Coast had no Paenibacillus, which were present in tomatoes of other places. With this, they decided to inoculate tomatoes with several Paenibacillus and found that Salmonella disappeared. Among the inoculated strains, one was selected as more effective, P. alvei TS -15 , for which a patent was obtained as a biocontrol agent of foodborne human pathogens (Brown et al. 2012) .

Thus, knowledge of the soil microbiota and the many forms of relationships between microorganisms and plants lead to find new strategies for using “good” microbes to prevent food safety problems of transmission of pathogens, while at the same time it can be a good ecological alternative to the massive use of pesticides.

Bibliography

Brown EW, Zheng J, Enurach A, The Government of USA (2012) Paenibacillus alvei strain TS-15 and its use in controlling pathogenic organisms. Patent WO2012166392, PCT/US2012/038584

Conniff R (2013) Super dirt. Scientific American 309, sept, 76-79.

Conniff R (2013) Tierra prodigiosa. Investigación y Ciencia 446, nov, 68-71.

García, Sady (2013) Los microorganismos del suelo y su rol en la nutrición vegetal. Simposium Perú “Manejo nutricional de cultivos de exportación”. Slideshare.net

Khan N, Mishra A, Nautiyal CS (2012) Paenibacillus lentimorbus B-30488r controls early blight disease in tomato by inducing host resistance associated gene expression and inhibiting Alternaria solani. Biological Control 62, 65-74

Lamsal K, Kim SW, Kim YS, Lee YS (2012) Application of rhizobacteria for plant growth promotion effect and biocontrol of anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum acutatum on pepper. Mycobiology 40, 244-251.

McSpadden Gardener BB (2004) Ecology of Bacillus and  Paenibacillus spp. in agricultural systems. Phytopathology 94, 1252-1258

Raaijmakers JM, Vlami M, De Souza JT (2002) Antibiotic production by bacterial biocontrol agents. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 81, 537-547

Sánchez, Manuel. http://curiosidadesdelamicrobiologia.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/la-compania-de-transporte-paenibacillus.html

Timmusk S, Grantcharova N, Wagner EGH (2005) Paenibacillus polymyxa invades plant roots and forms biofilms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, 7292-7300

Viquipèdia: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micoriza

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paenibacillus_dendritiformis

No sé ni cómo te atreves

Fotografía y esas pequeñas cosas de cada día

Pols d'estels

El bloc d'Enric Marco

Life Secrets

For my students

Horitzons llunyans

Mirades distants

#4wine

Los vinos son pequeñas historias dentro de una botella y nosotras queremos contarte las nuestras

Vi·moments·persones

Un maridatge a tres bandes

SciLogs: Artificial, naturalmente

Interesting things on life sciences and on nature, and other things not so "bio"

microBIO

Interesting things on life sciences and on nature, and other things not so "bio"

RealClimate

Interesting things on life sciences and on nature, and other things not so "bio"

Quèquicom

Interesting things on life sciences and on nature, and other things not so "bio"

Dionís de viatge a Ítaca

Experiències enoturístiques

%d bloggers like this: