Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

Simulating the Contribution of Coaggregation to Interspecies Hydrogen Fluxes in Syntrophic Methanogenic Consortia

Shun'ichi Ishii, Tomoyuki Kosaka, Yasuaki Hotta, Kazuya Watanabe
Shun'ichi Ishii
1Marine Biotechnology Institute, Heita, Kamaishi, Iwate 026-0001
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: shunichi.ishii@mbio.jp
Tomoyuki Kosaka
1Marine Biotechnology Institute, Heita, Kamaishi, Iwate 026-0001
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yasuaki Hotta
2Central Research Institute of Oral Science, School of Dentistry, Asahi University, Hozumi, Mizuho, Gifu 501-0296, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kazuya Watanabe
1Marine Biotechnology Institute, Heita, Kamaishi, Iwate 026-0001
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00333-06
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

A simple model (termed the syntrophy model) for simulating the contribution of coaggregation to interspecies hydrogen fluxes between syntrophic bacteria and methanogenic archaea is described. We applied it to analyzing partially aggregated syntrophic cocultures with various substrates, revealing that large fractions of hydrogen molecules were fluxed in aggregates.

The syntrophic interaction between fermentative bacteria and methanogenic archaea is an essential part of methanogenesis (18) and has been found in such ecosystems as rice paddy fields (5), freshwater sediments (4), mammalian digestive tracts (29), petroleum-contaminated soil (12), and anaerobic digesters for organic waste treatment (6, 9, 18, 21, 24). In this process, reducing equivalents (i.e., H2 and/or formate) produced by fermentative bacteria should be efficiently consumed by methanogenic archaea in order for the bacteria and archaea to grow actively (2, 3, 24, 27). This is particularly important for syntrophic volatile fatty acid (such as butyrate, propionate, and acetate) oxidation, since this reaction is endergonic under standard conditions and is thermodynamically feasible only when the H2 partial pressure (or formate concentration) is kept very low (1, 6, 20, 24, 27).

It has been theoretically suggested that close physical contact between volatile fatty acid-fermenting syntrophic bacteria (syntrophs) and methanogenic archaea (methanogens) is important for efficient interspecies electron transfer (2, 19, 24, 28). Our previous study has also indicated that coaggregation facilitated interspecies hydrogen transfer between a propionate-oxidizing syntroph, Pelotomaculum thermopropionicum SI, and a hydrogen-consuming methanogen, Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus ΔH (11). However, since we were unable to separately determine hydrogen flux in aggregates and that between dispersed cells, the contribution of aggregates to interspecies hydrogen transfer has not yet been quantitatively evaluated. In the present study, we developed and applied a model (named the syntrophy model) for simulating the contribution of coaggregation to interspecies hydrogen flux between syntrophs and methanogens.

Model development.

Hydrogen flux was estimated based on Fick's diffusion law (equation 1). $$mathtex$$\[J{=}D_{\mathrm{H}2}\ \frac{C_{\mathrm{H}2-\mathrm{syntroph}}{-}C_{\mathrm{H}2-{\Delta}\mathrm{H}}}{d}\]$$mathtex$$(1) In this equation, J is the interspecies hydrogen flux, DH2 is the H2 diffusion constant in water (at 55°C), CH2-syntroph is the H2 concentration immediately outside a syntroph cell, CH2-ΔH is the H2 concentration immediately outside a ΔH cell, and d is the average distance between the syntroph and ΔH cells (for units of parameters, refer to the tables). Total interspecies hydrogen flux (QH2) is stoichiometrically correlated with the methane production rate (four times the methane production rate) and calculated by multiplying the J value by the total surface area of hydrogen-releasing syntroph cells. $$mathtex$$\[Q_{\mathrm{H}2}{=}X_{\mathrm{syntroph}}\ {\cdot}\ V\ {\cdot}\ A_{\mathrm{syntroph}}\ {\cdot}\ J\]$$mathtex$$(2) In this equation, Xsyntroph is the cell concentration of syntroph, V is the culture volume, and Asyntroph is the surface area of a syntroph cell.

In order to apply this estimation method to partially aggregated cocultures, QH2 between aggregated cells and that between dispersed cells were separately estimated as follows. $$mathtex$$\[Q_{\mathrm{H2-agg}}{=}X_{\mathrm{agg-syntroph}}\ {\cdot}\ V\ {\cdot}\ A_{\mathrm{syntroph}}\ {\cdot}\ D_{\mathrm{H}2}\ \frac{C_{\mathrm{H}2-\mathrm{syntroph}}{-}C_{\mathrm{H}2-{\Delta}\mathrm{H}}}{d_{\mathrm{agg}}}\]$$mathtex$$(3)$$mathtex$$\[Q_{\mathrm{H2-dis}}{=}X_{\mathrm{dis-syntroph}}\ {\cdot}\ V\ {\cdot}\ A_{\mathrm{syntroph}}\ {\cdot}\ D_{\mathrm{H}2}\ \frac{C_{\mathrm{H}2-\mathrm{syntroph}}{-}C_{\mathrm{H}2-{\Delta}\mathrm{H}}}{d_{\mathrm{dis}}}\]$$mathtex$$(4)$$mathtex$$\[Q_{\mathrm{H}2}{=}Q_{\mathrm{H2-agg}}{+}Q_{\mathrm{H2-dis}}\]$$mathtex$$(5) In these equations, QH2-agg and QH2-dis are the total hydrogen flux between aggregated cells and that between dispersed cells, respectively, Xagg-syntroph and Xdis-syntroph are the concentration of aggregated syntroph cells and that of dispersed cells, respectively, and dagg and ddis are the mean interspecies distance between aggregated cells and that between dispersed cells, respectively. This scheme for estimating a QH2 value was named “the syntrophy model.”

Growth and coaggregation.

We have reported that cells in coculture of P. thermopropionicum SI (8) and M. thermautotrophicus ΔH were partially aggregated (11). The present study also analyzed cocultures of strain ΔH with butyrate-oxidizing Syntrophothermus lipocalidus TGB-C1 (22) and acetate-oxidizing Thermacetogenium phaeum PB (7). They were grown in 100-ml serum vials containing 50 ml of a culture medium as described elsewhere previously (22). The culture medium was supplemented with 0.1% Bacto yeast extract (Difco) and a growth substrate at 17 to 20 mM. Cultivation was conducted at 55°C under an atmosphere of N2 plus CO2 (80/20 [vol/vol]) without shaking. Cultivation was initiated by inoculation with 5 ml of a preculture in the same medium. Hydrogen releases from acetate by strain PB and from butyrate by strain TGB-C1 were examined in monocultures inoculated with 5 ml of precultures grown on methanol (PB) and crotonate (TGB-C1), in which methanol or crotonate was completely lost. Microscopic analyses and gas chromatography were conducted as described previously (11).

We found that although cells in monocultures of PB and TGB-C1 (grown on methanol and crotonate, respectively) were fully dispersed, their cells in cocultures with ΔH were partially aggregated (see Fig. S1 and S2 in the supplemental material for growth curves and phase-contrast micrographs, respectively). Cells in their cocultures were also observed by field emission-scanning electron microscopy (10), revealing that aggregates were comprised of both syntroph and methanogen cells (see Fig. S3 in the supplemental material). In addition, extracellular filamentous appendages were found in these cocultures, which connected syntroph cells to methanogen cells (see Fig. S3 in the supplemental material).

Our previous study also found that strain SI utilized flagellum-like filaments for making contact with strain ΔH (11). Together with the results of the present study, we consider that the connection of syntroph and methanogen cells with filaments is a widespread phenomenon. In order to know more specifically how these filaments contribute to coaggregation, molecular analyses of filaments should be done. It has been known that extracellular filaments function as adhesins in many different types of bacteria (10, 14, 15, 17, 23, 26); information in those studies will be useful for examining the role of extracellular filaments of syntrophs.

Xagg-syntroph and Xdis-syntroph.

In order to estimate QH2 values, we first determined Xagg-syntroph and Xdis-syntroph values for strains SI, PB, and TGB-C1 in cocultures with strain ΔH. For this, we measured optical densities at 600 nm (OD600) of a coculture before and after gentle homogenization with a tissue grinder, as described previously (11), until the OD600 no longer increased. Phase-contrast images of several homogenized cultures revealed that cell aggregates were fully dispersed (data not shown). The OD600 values measured were converted to a total cell concentration (a sum of syntroph and methanogen cells, Xtotal) using equations 6 to 8; these equations were produced from standard curves obtained by measuring OD600 and cell concentrations (DAPI [4′,6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole] counts) (11) of several fully dispersed cultures. $$mathtex$$\[X_{\mathrm{total}\ (\mathrm{SI}/{\Delta}\mathrm{H})}({\times}\ 10^{7}\ \mathrm{cells\ ml}^{{-}1}){=}122\ {\cdot}\ \mathrm{OD}_{600}{-}0.92\]$$mathtex$$(6)$$mathtex$$\[X_{\mathrm{total}\ (\mathrm{TGB}-\mathrm{C}1/{\Delta}\mathrm{H})}({\times}\ 10^{7}\ \mathrm{cells\ ml}^{{-}1}){=}318\ {\cdot}\ \mathrm{OD}_{600}{-}3.40\]$$mathtex$$(7)$$mathtex$$\[X_{\mathrm{total}\ (\mathrm{PB}/{\Delta}\mathrm{H})}({\times}\ 10^{7}\ \mathrm{cells\ ml}^{{-}1}){=}158\ {\cdot}\ \mathrm{OD}_{600}{-}3.44\]$$mathtex$$(8) The concentration of total aggregated cells (Xagg) was determined using equation 9, while the concentration of total dispersed cells (Xdis) was calculated from Xagg using equation 10. $$mathtex$$\[X_{\mathrm{agg}}\ (\%){=}\ \frac{X_{\mathrm{total}}\ \mathrm{after\ dispersion}{-}X_{\mathrm{total}}\ \mathrm{before\ dispersion}}{X_{\mathrm{total}}\ \mathrm{after\ dispersion}}{\times}100\]$$mathtex$$(9)$$mathtex$$\[X_{\mathrm{dis}}{=}X_{\mathrm{total}}{-}X_{\mathrm{agg}}\]$$mathtex$$(10)Xagg and Xdis values can also be estimated from DAPI microscopic counts of cells before and after homogenization, while the values determined by the OD measurement agreed well with those determined by the DAPI counts (data not shown).

In order to estimate a ratio of the number of syntroph cells to that of total dispersed cells, dispersed cells were observed using phase-contrast micrography (see Fig. 1A, for example) and fluorescence microscopy. Syntroph cells and methanogen cells could be discriminated according to the differences in cell shape and the F420 autofluorescence (9). An Xdis-syntroph value was estimated from Xdis and the ratio of the number of syntroph cells. On the other hand, the ratio of the number of syntroph cells to that of the total aggregated cells was determined based on data from thin-section images of coaggregates obtained by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Fig. 1B). TEM images were obtained by a standard procedure (13) using an H7000 transmission electron microscope (Hitachi). As shown in Fig. 1B, syntroph cells could be distinguished from ΔH cells by shape and darkness. An Xagg-syntroph value was estimated from Xagg and the ratio of the number of syntroph cells (n > 90 for all cases).

FIG. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 1.

Determination of interspecies distances for dispersed cells and aggregated cells in a coculture of strains SI and ΔH. (A) A representative phase-contrast micrograph showing aggregates and dispersed cells. Arrows indicate an interspecies distance between dispersed cells. Bar, 20 μm. (B) A representative cross-section TEM image of aggregated cells showing parameters in equation 11 for determining a dagg value. Bar, 500 nm.

Table 1 summarizes Xagg, Xagg-syntroph, Xdis, Xdis-syntroph, Xtotal, and Xtotal-syntroph values for four types of cocultures at mid-log growth phases, namely, SI plus ΔH grown on ethanol, SI plus ΔH grown on propionate, TGB-C1 plus ΔH grown on butyrate, and PB plus ΔH grown on acetate. Table 1 shows that SI/ΔH (propionate) and PB/ΔH (acetate) coaggregated at relatively high ratios, although the Xagg values were not high compared to Xdis values in all cases. In addition, we found that methanogen cells occupied aggregates more abundantly than did syntroph cells; this trend was prominent in cocultures of SI/ΔH (ethanol) and TGB-C1/ΔH (butyrate). We deduce that syntroph cells should have more vigorously aggregated when they were grown on energetically unfavorable substrates, i.e., propionate and acetate.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Cell concentrations in syntrophic cocultures

dagg and ddis.

We calculated a ddis value by supposing that dispersed cells were randomly distributed in the liquid phase (2, 11, 16, 24). In contrast, a dagg value was determined by analyzing thin-section TEM pictures of aggregates (see Fig. 1B, for example). In this analysis, we supposed that cells were cylindrical and determined a mean radius of syntroph cells (Rs), a mean radius of ΔH cells (Rd)b and a mean minimal interspecies distance (dagg-min) by analyzing over 80 syntroph/ΔH pairs for each coculture. From these values, an interspecies distance at angle θ (Fig. 1B) was calculated using equation 11. $$mathtex$$\[d_{\mathrm{agg}}({\theta}){=}[(R_{\mathrm{s}}\ {\cdot}\ \mathrm{sin}{\theta}\ {-}\ R_{\mathrm{d}}\ {\cdot}\ \mathrm{sin}{\theta})^{2}{+}(R_{\mathrm{s}}{+}d_{\mathrm{agg-min}}{+}R_{\mathrm{d}}{-}R_{\mathrm{s}}\ {\cdot}\ \mathrm{cos}{\theta}{-}R_{\mathrm{d}}\ {\cdot}\ \mathrm{cos}{\theta})^{2}]^{0.5}\]$$mathtex$$11The θ value ranged from 0 to π/2. For estimating dagg, π/2 was divided into n parts, and dagg(θ) at each θ point was calculated. Equation 12 was used for estimating dagg from the dagg(θ) values. $$mathtex$$\[d_{\mathrm{agg}}{=}\ \frac{{{\sum}_{{\theta}\ {=}\ 0}^{{\pi}/2}}\ d_{\mathrm{agg}}({\theta})}{n}\]$$mathtex$$(12) In our analyses, n was arbitrarily set at 90. Table 2 presents parameters in equation 11 and dagg and ddis values determined for the cocultures used in the present study. It is shown that the dagg values for the different cocultures were similar to each other and that the ddis values were approximately 100-fold higher than the dagg values.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Parameters used in the syntrophy model

Estimation of hydrogen fluxes.

In order to estimate QH2-agg and QH2-dis, parameters in equations 3 and 4, other than Xagg-syntroph, Xdis-syntroph, dagg, and ddis, were determined as follows. DH2 was cited from data reported previously by Wise and Houghton (30). CH2-ΔH was defined as the minimum H2 concentration, above which an H2-consuming methanogen can gain energy by carbonate respiration (6). Asyntroph was estimated by assuming that cells were cylindrical and measuring diameters and lengths of syntroph cells in the field emission-scanning electron microscopy photos (see Fig. S3 in the supplemental material) (11). CH2-syntroph was determined to be the H2 concentration at a time point of microscopic analysis in the exponential growth phase, which was obtained from an H2 release curve (see Fig S1 in the supplemental material for strains PB and TGB-C1) (see reference 11 for strain SI). These values are summarized in Table 2.

Table 3 summarizes QH2-agg and QH2-dis values estimated as described above, in which we also present QH2 values and total H2 fluxes experimentally determined from methane production rates (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material) (11). The estimation revealed that although numbers of syntroph cells in aggregates (Xagg-syntroph) were relatively small in all cocultures, they contributed largely to total hydrogen fluxes (49 to 92%). Notably, coaggregation was found to contribute largely to syntrophic propionate and acetate oxidation. It is also shown that the estimated total hydrogen fluxes (QH2 values) agreed well with those experimentally determined, supporting the adequacy of the syntrophy model.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3.

Interspecies hydrogen fluxes estimated using the syntrophy model and those experimentally determined

We show here that the simulation model was applicable to several different syntrophic methanogenic cocultures irrespective of coculture members and substrates, suggesting that the model is widely applicable for partially aggregated heterogeneous systems. Although previous studies have theoretically discussed the importance of close physical contact for propionate oxidation (2, 11, 25, 28), the model could quantitatively show that coaggregation was important not only for oxidation of propionate, butyrate, and acetate (representing thermodynamically unfavorable substrates) but also for ethanol oxidation. Based on the results, we suggest that aggregation is the key factor for engineering syntrophic methanogenesis, for which the simulation model described herein will be useful.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Yoichi Kamagata for providing T. phaeum PB and S. lipocalidus TGB-C1 and Hiroyuki Imachi for providing P. thermopropionicum SI. We also thank Masanori Arita for valuable advice for model development, Kohei Nakamura and Miho Enoki for valuable suggestions, and Yasuo Igarashi and Hiroshi Ikenaga for continuous encouragement. We are grateful to Katsutoshi Hori and Mika Atsumi for help in electron microscopy and Reiko Hirano for technical assistance.

This work was supported by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 10 February 2006.
    • Accepted 28 April 2006.
  • Copyright © 2006 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Boone, D. R., R. L. Johnson, and Y. Liu. 1989. Diffusion of the interspecies electron carriers H2 and formate in methanogenic ecosystems and its implications in the measurement of Km for H2 or formate uptake. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.55:1735-1741.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    De Bok, F. A. M., C. M. Plugge, and A. J. M. Stams. 2004. Interspecies electron transfer in methanogenic propionate degrading consortia. Water Res.38:1368-1375.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Dong, X., and A. J. M. Stams. 1995. Evidence for H2 and formate formation during syntrophic butyrate and propionate degradation. Anaerobe1:35-39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Falz, K. Z., C. Holliger, R. Großkopf, W. Liesack, A. N. Nozhevnikova, B. Müller, B. Wehrli, and D. Hahn. 1999. Vertical distribution of methanogens in the anoxic sediment of Rotsee (Switzerland). Appl. Environ. Microbiol.65:2402-2408.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Glissmann, K., S. Weber, and R. Conrad. 2001. Localization of processes involved in methanogenic degradation of rice straw in anoxic paddy soil. Environ. Microbiol.3:502-511.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Harper, S. R., and F. G. Pohland. 1986. Recent developments in hydrogen management during anaerobic biological wastewater treatment. Biotechnol. Bioeng.28:585-602.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Hattori, S., Y. Kamagata, S. Hanada, and H. Shoun. 2000. Thermacetogenium phaeum gen. nov., sp. nov., a strictly anaerobic, thermophilic, syntrophic acetate-oxidizing bacterium. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.50:1601-1609.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Imachi, H., Y. Sekiguchi, Y. Kamagata, S. Hanada, A. Ohashi, and H. Harada. 2002. Pelotomaculum thermopropionicum gen. nov., sp. nov., an anaerobic, thermophilic, syntrophic propionate-oxidizing bacterium. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.52:1729-1735.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Imachi, H., Y. Sekiguchi, Y. Kamagata, A. Ohashi, and H. Harada. 2000. Cultivation and in situ detection of a thermophilic bacterium capable of oxidizing propionate in syntrophic association with hydrogenotrophic methanogens in a thermophilic methanogenic granular sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.66:3608-3615.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Ishii, S., J. Koki, H. Unno, and K. Hori. 2004. Two morphological types of cell appendages on a strongly adhesive bacterium, Acinetobacter sp. strain Tol 5. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.70:5026-5029.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Ishii, S., T. Kosaka, K. Hori, Y. Hotta, and K. Watanabe. 2005. Coaggregation facilitates interspecies hydrogen transfer between Pelotomaculum thermopropionicum and Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.71:7838-7845.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Kasai, Y., Y. Takahata, T. Hoaki, and K. Watanabe. 2005. Physiological and molecular characterization of a microbial community established in unsaturated, petroleum-contaminated soil. Environ. Microbiol.7:806-818.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Kawachi, M., M. Atsumi, H. Ikemoto, and S. Miyachi. 2002. Pinguiochrysis pyriformis gen. et sp. nov. (Pinguiophyceae), a new picoplanktonic alga isolated from the Pacific Ocean. Phycol. Res.50:49-56.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    Kolari, M., U. Schmidt, E. Kuismanen, and M. S. Salkinoja-Salonen. 2002. Firm but slippery attachment of Deinococcus geothermalis. J. Bacteriol.184:2473-2480.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Kuhner, C. H., C. Matthies, G. Acker, M. Schmittroth, A. S. Gößner, and H. L. Drake. 2000. Clostridium akagii sp. nov. and Clostridium acidisoli sp. nov.: acid-tolerant, N2-fixing clostridia isolated from acidic forest soil and litter. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.50:873-881.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    Overmann, J., and K. Schubert. 2002. Phototrophic consortia: model systems for symbiotic interrelations between prokaryotes. Arch. Microbiol.177:201-208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Rickard, A. H., P. Gilbert, N. J. High, P. E. Kolenbrander, and P. S. Handley. 2003. Bacterial coaggregation: an integral process in the development of multi-species biofilms. Trends Microbiol.11:94-100.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Schink, B. 1997. Energetics of syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic degradation. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.61:262-280.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Schink, B., and R. K. Thauer. 1988. Energetics of syntrophic methane formation and the influence of aggregation, p. 5-17. In G. Lettinga, A. J. B. Zehnder, J. T. C. Grotenhuis, and L. W. Hulshoff-Pol (ed.), Granular anaerobic sludge: microbiology and technology. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
  20. 20.↵
    Schmidt, J. E., and B. K. Ahring. 1993. Effects of hydrogen and formate on the degradation of propionate and butyrate in thermophilic granules from an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.59:2546-2551.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Sekiguchi, Y., Y. Kamagata, and H. Harada. 2001. Recent advances in methane fermentation technology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.12:277-282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Sekiguchi, Y., Y. Kamagata, K. Nakamura, A. Ohashi, and H. Harada. 2000. Syntrophothermus lipocalidus gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel thermophilic, syntrophic, fatty-acid-oxidizing anaerobe which utilizes isobutyrate. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.50:771-779.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Skerker, J. M., and L. Shapiro. 2000. Identification and cell cycle control of a novel pilus system in Caulobacter crescentus. EMBO J.19:3223-3234.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Stams, A. J. M. 1994. Metabolic interactions between anaerobic bacteria in methanogenic environments. Antonie Leeuwenhoek66:271-294.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Stams, A. J. M., K. C. F. Grolle, C. T. M. J. Frijters, and J. B. van Lier. 1992. Enrichment of thermophilic propionate-oxidizing bacteria in syntrophy with Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum or Methanobacterium thermoformicicum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.58:346-352.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    Tasteyre, A., M.-C. Barc, A. Collignon, H. Boureau, and T. Karjalainen. 2001. Role of FliC and FliD flagellar proteins of Clostridium difficile in adherence and gut colonization. Infect. Immun.69:7937-7940.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    Thauer, R. K., K. Jungermann, and K. Decker. 1977. Energy conservation in chemotrophic anaerobic bacteria. Bacteriol. Rev.41:100-180.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Van Lier, J. B., J. L. S. Martin, and G. Lettinga. 1996. Effect of temperature on the anaerobic thermophilic conversion of volatile fatty acids by dispersed and granular sludge. Water Res.30:199-207.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Vogels, G. D., W. F. Hoppe, and C. K. Stumm. 1980. Association of methanogenic bacteria with rumen ciliates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.40:608-612.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    Wise, D. L., and G. Houghton. 1966. The diffusion coefficients of ten slightly soluble-gases in water at 10-60°C. Chem. Eng. Sci.21:999-1010.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Simulating the Contribution of Coaggregation to Interspecies Hydrogen Fluxes in Syntrophic Methanogenic Consortia
Shun'ichi Ishii, Tomoyuki Kosaka, Yasuaki Hotta, Kazuya Watanabe
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jul 2006, 72 (7) 5093-5096; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00333-06

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Simulating the Contribution of Coaggregation to Interspecies Hydrogen Fluxes in Syntrophic Methanogenic Consortia
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Simulating the Contribution of Coaggregation to Interspecies Hydrogen Fluxes in Syntrophic Methanogenic Consortia
Shun'ichi Ishii, Tomoyuki Kosaka, Yasuaki Hotta, Kazuya Watanabe
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jul 2006, 72 (7) 5093-5096; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00333-06
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Model development.
    • Growth and coaggregation.
    • Xagg-syntroph and Xdis-syntroph.
    • dagg and ddis.
    • Estimation of hydrogen fluxes.
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

bacteria
hydrogen
methane
Methanobacteriaceae
Models, Biological

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336