Next Article in Journal
Assessment of the Virulence of the Burkholderia mallei Strain BAC 86/19 in BALB/c Mice
Previous Article in Journal
Biofilms as Battlefield Armor for Bacteria against Antibiotics: Challenges and Combating Strategies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Alteration in Community Dynamics of Chaetoceros curvisetus and Bacterioplankton Communities in Response to Surfactin Exposure

1
Ningbo Institute of Oceanography, Ningbo 315832, China
2
Key Laboratory of Marine Ecosystem Dynamics, Second Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Hangzhou 310012, China
3
College of Food and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315832, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(10), 2596; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11102596
Submission received: 29 August 2023 / Revised: 29 September 2023 / Accepted: 3 October 2023 / Published: 20 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Microbiology)

Abstract

:
The use of surfactin is a promising method to mitigate algal blooms. However, little is known about surfactin toxicity to algae and bacterioplankton. Here, we treated Chaetoceros curvisetus, the dominant species of algal blooms in the East China Sea, with 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mg/L of surfactin for 96 h to investigate temporal variability. Our results showed that low concentrations of surfactin (<2 mg/L) changed the cell morphology of C. curvisetus, and higher concentrations (>3 mg/L) had lethal effects. Meanwhile, we examined the community dynamics of the free-living (FL, 0.22–5 μm) and particle-attached (PA, >5 μm) bacterioplankton of C. curvisetus in response to different surfactin concentrations and cultivation periods. Both PA and FL bacterioplankton were mainly composed of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes, while FL bacterioplankton were more diverse than PA bacterioplankton. The variations of FL and PA bacterioplankton were significantly constrained by the surfactin concentration. Surfactin changed the lifestyle of some bacterioplankton from FL to PA, which mainly belonged to abundant bacterioplankton. Furthermore, we identified some surfactin-sensitive species/taxa. Our study will help enhance the ability to predict marine microbial responses under the effect of surfactin, providing a research foundation for this new harmful algal bloom mitigation method.

1. Introduction

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) represent a broad suite of phytoplankton, macroalgae, and cyanobacteria that can have significant impacts on ecological resources, human health, and coastal economies [1]. Research on the development of techniques to control or mitigate algal blooms is a promising area. Methods of controlling HABs can be separated into three categories based on their mode of action, including physical mitigation methods (e.g., clay flocculation), chemical (e.g., copper sulphate and ozone), and biological (e.g., algicidal bacteria) control methods [2]. Although several of these methods show promise, the direct control of algal blooms is a sensitive issue because there is always the risk of negatively impacting other parts of the aquatic ecosystem.
Recent studies indicate the potential of a group of substances known as biosurfactants as potential agents to manage algal blooms [3,4]. The greatest advantage of biosurfactants when compared with synthetic surfactants is they are easily biodegraded, making them environmentally acceptable in contrast to some synthetic algicides [5]. As most of the biosurfactant research to date has been performed with rhamnolipids, other biosurfactants need to be investigated as they may have more promising properties. Surfactin, a bacterial cyclic lipopeptide, is produced by various strains of Bacillus subtilis [6] and is primarily recognized as one of the most effective biosurfactants. Surfactin is named for its exceptional surfactant activity [7]. It lowers the surface tension of water from 72 to 27 mN/m at a concentration as low as 0.005% and is a very powerful biosurfactant [8]. Surfactin possesses a number of biological activities such as the ability to lyse bacterial spheroplasts and protoplasts, and inhibit cyclic 3,5-monophosphate diesterase [9]. Considering the deleterious effect of harmful algal blooms on the environment and the opportunity to avoid the secondary pollution problem encountered with many other control strategies, the use of surfactin is a promising method to mitigate algal blooms.
Previous studies on biosurfactants as potential HABs mitigation agents have focused on the marine dinoflagellates, including Alexandrium tamarense, Alexandrium minutum, Karenia brevis, Heterosigma akashiwo, Cochlodinium polykrikoides, Gymnodinium sp., and Prorocentrum dentatum. These species were all observed to be sensitive, although to different extents, to the glycolipid biosurfactants sophorolipid and rhamnolipid [4,10,11]. However, we have little knowledge about the algicidal effects of surfactin. Although Ahn et al. (2003) [3] revealed that the culture broth of Bacillus subtilis C1 containing surfactin at 10 mg/L effectively suppressed cyanobacterial growth and speculated that the damage to Microcystis aeruginosa was mainly due to the destabilization of the membranes by the surfactin, they did not isolate the biosurfactant from the culture broth to ensure its algicidal activity or elucidate the mechanism further.
In recent years, Chaetoceros curvisetus blooms have been recorded in the East China Sea [12], Andaman Islands [13], west Scotland [14], and other areas. The centric diatom Chaetoceros sp. is regarded as harmful algae although it does not secrete any harmful toxins. The setae of the diatom are easily broken, and if large quantities lodge in the gills of a fish, they may kill the fish [15]. The secondary spines anchor the setae to the sensitive gill tissue, causing irritation, and the fish reacts by producing mucus. Eventually, it dies from suffocation. Fish mortalities due to this species have already been reported in aquaculture farms [14] and pen cultures [16]. Therefore, there is a need for more study on the short-term ecotoxicological effects of surfactin on the bloom-forming diatom C. curvisetus. Determining the temporal variability of C. curvisetus could provide a clue as to how diatom communities respond to surfactin.
Bacterioplankton play crucial roles in biogeochemical cycling in marine ecosystems [17] and the biodegradation of organic compounds [18]. Thus, bacterioplankton could be promising targets used to evaluate the ecological effect of contamination at the community level in coastal waters. Bacterioplankton can be classified into two types of communities depending on their relationship with the particulate matter in the water (e.g., free-living (FL) and particle-attached (PA) lifestyles) [19,20]. FL and PA bacterioplankton have been regarded as interacting assemblages [21]. Increasing evidence indicates that the exchange or transition of bacterial lifestyles is influenced by chemical triggers, substrate availability, turbulence, and eutrophication [21,22]. Hence, there is a need for gaining a more in-depth understanding of the transition between these two types of bacterial lifestyles in response to surfactin. Moreover, we wanted to find some surfactin-sensitive species/taxa, which can be used in the automated monitoring instruments for bacterioplankton in situ to help clarify the influence of surfactin on the coastal marine ecosystem. Microbial communities in natural ecosystems are typically composed of a small number of abundant bacterioplankton and a far greater number of rare bacterioplankton [23]. Abundant bacterioplankton dominate major ecosystem processes (for example, carbon flow and nutrient cycling), whereas rare bacterioplankton can be regarded as propagule banks and play minor but non-negligible roles [24]. As such, we further divided bacterioplankton into abundant/rare bacterioplankton to find surfactin-sensitive species/taxa.
The use of surfactin has not been fully demonstrated in coastal environments [3]. Its effectiveness in mitigating algal bloom impacts remains an open question, and the mechanisms of surfactin toxicity to marine bacterioplankton are still not well resolved. Therefore, all of these questions need further and more in-depth investigation to provide a foundation for this proposed new HABs mitigation method. In this study, we aim (i) to investigate the algicidal effect of surfactin on C. curvisetus, which has not been tested previously; (ii) to provide a glimpse into the varying trend of the PA and FL bacterioplankton in response to the surfactin concentration and cultivation period using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing; and (iii) to find surfactin-sensitive species/taxa.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Algal Cultures

C. curvisetus was originally isolated from the Changjiang estuary, East China Sea. The stock culture maintenance and the experiments were conducted in the Algal Culture Laboratory, Ningbo University. The culture of C. curvisetus was grown at 22 ± 1 °C, and approximately 54 μmol photons m−2 s−1 with a photoperiod cycle of 12:12 h L:D (light:dark). The C. curvisetus culture was maintained in a conical flask filled with 4 L of f/2 medium nutrients [25] with the addition of silica, prepared using East China Sea water adjusted to a salinity of 24 by the addition of sterile double-distilled water. The cells used in the experiment were in the exponential phase of the growth curve.

2.2. Experimental Design

For each algal culture, aliquots of 100 mL culture were transferred to a total of 28 transparent conical flasks, containing four replicates of one control group (pure seawater) and six surfactin treatments (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mg/L surfactin). Six surfactin treatments were spiked with ethanol as a carrier solvent for surfactin, which contained the same amount of ethanol (0.04 v/v %) to make these systems have the same initial background. Notably, 0 mg/L surfactin treatment contained 0.04 v/v % ethanol, which was different from the control group (pure seawater). Finally, the effect of the surfactin on the abundance of C. curvisetus was studied using an inverted light microscope (Leica DM500, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) at 400× magnification. Changes in the morphology of the algal cells were also noted after 24, 48, 72, and 96 h for the different treatments.
After microscopic examination, each experimental sample was immediately filtered through 5-μm and 0.22-μm pore-size membranes (47 mm diameter polycarbonate, Millipore, Burlington, MA, USA) to collect FL and PA bacterioplankton. Bacterioplankton samples were divided into two size fractions: 0.22–5 μm (FL) and >5 μm (PA) to operationally separate free-living cells from those attached to C. curvisetus. The filters were then stored at −80 °C until DNA extraction. To prevent contamination between samples, the filtration systems were carefully washed with sterile water before bacterioplankton collection and filtration.

2.3. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplification, and Illumina Miseq Pyrosequencing

DNA extraction was performed using the Power Soil DNA isolation kit (Mo Bio, Carlsbad, CA, USA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The V3–V4 region of the bacterial 16S rDNA gene was amplified using primer set 341F (5′-CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG-3′) and 805R (5′-GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC-3′). PCR amplifications were performed under the following procedures: 94 °C for 3 min, 25 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 50 °C for 20 s, and extension at 72 °C for 30 s, and finalized with a 10-min extension step at 72 °C. Then, PCR products were purified using a PCR fragment purification kit (Takara, Tokyo, Japan) and quantified using a Quant-It Pico Green kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) with a Qubit fluorometer (Invitrogen). High-throughput gene sequencing was then performed on a MiSeq platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) in a paired-end 300-bp sequence read run at Sangon Biotech Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China).

2.4. Processing of Pyrosequencing Data

The QIIME v 1.8 [26] and USEARCH v 6.1 [27] pipelines were used to perform quality control and to cluster sequences into operational taxonomic units (OTUs). Paired-end reads were merged with fast-length adjustment of short reads (FLASH) [28]. Raw sequences were demultiplexed and filtered to remove low-quality sequences using QIIME. Chimeras were detected and removed with USEARCH using the SILVA 128 database [29]. The remaining sequences were clustered into OTUs using a 97% sequence identity cutoff with UCLUST [30]. The taxonomic classifications were carried out using the SILVA 128 reference database. OTUs affiliated with chloroplast, mitochondrion, unclassified sequences, and singletons were removed. After these procedures, the number of final high-quality clean reads of bacterioplankton in each sample ranged from 10,819 to 94,695 reads, yielding a total of 2113 OTUs (Table A1).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed in R v3.6.1 software. Prior to statistical analyses, all biological data were Hellinger-transformed to improve normality and homoscedasticity [31].

2.5.1. Bacterioplankton Community Composition Analyses

The bacterioplankton community compositions were analyzed at the phylum and class levels (top seven in relative abundance), and visualized using the barplot function in R. Alpha diversity indices (Shannon–Wiener, Simpson, Evenness, and Chao1 indices) were calculated from the OTU dataset in QIIME [26]. OTUs were classified into two categories: abundant OTUs and rare OTUs. Referring to a previous study [32,33], abundant OTUs were defined as those with a representation ≥1% within a sample, but never rare (<0.01%), and rare OTUs were defined as having an abundance <0.01% within a sample, but never ≥1%, based on all samples. In addition, sensitive OTUs, which were detected at different cultivation periods, were identified when their relative abundances during one period changed more than 10 or less than 0.1 times compared with other periods. The dynamics of the occurrences and relative abundances of sensitive OTUs were visualized with Heatmap, using the “pheatmap” package in the R environment.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to investigate the impacts of size fraction, cultivation period, changes in algal cell, and surfactin concentration on the OTU number and bacterial alpha diversity indices. Changes in algal cell were defined as the change in cell concentration of the algal population over the last 24 h of culture. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) using a Bray−Curtis metric was applied to phylogenetically visualize the overall variation in bacterial community composition. A measure of goodness of fit of the ordination was given by a stress value, which was set at <0.20 to minimize misinterpretation [34]. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) was applied to partition the variation in bacterial community composition using the “vegan” package [31].

2.5.2. Particle-Association Niche Index

To numerically characterize each OTU in relation to its occurrence and relative abundance in the PA and FL samples, we employed a particle-association niche index (PAN index). This index served as a measure of the position of an OTU in a continuous niche space ranging from a completely FL to a completely PA lifestyle. Only the OTUs with >10 sequences were used to calculate the PAN index. The PAN index was computed by an abundance-weighted mean: for a given OTU, we recorded its abundance in every sample and recorded the size fraction to which each sample belonged [35,36]. FL and PA bacterioplankton were given a value of 0 and a value of 1, respectively. Thus, an OTU occurring only in PA samples would have a PAN index value of 1 and an OTU strictly occurring in FL samples would have a value of 0. An OTU equally distributed across FL and PA samples would have a PAN index value of 0.5. Using this index, each OTU can be positioned in a continuum describing its lifestyle preference.

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Surfactin on C. curvisetus

Surfactin showed growth-inhibiting effects on the C. curvisetus at all tested concentrations, and the inhibitory effects increased with the increasing concentration of the surfactin (Figure 1). Compared to the cells in the control, the cell abundance of the algae decreased slightly on the second and third day after the addition of the surfactin at 0 mg/L, 0.5 mg/L, and 1 mg/L, and decreased significantly after 72 h. Treatments with 2 mg/L of surfactin led to significant suppression for C. curvisetus growth; the algal cell abundance was significantly less than 1 mg/L, and most algal cells were transformed from multicellular chains into single cells after 24 h. When the concentration was further increased to 3 mg/L and 4 mg/L, the surfactin showed a substantial killing effect on C. curvisetus; almost all lysed and disappeared within 48 h.

3.2. Bacterioplankton Community Composition

Approximately 99.67% of the obtained sequences could be classified at the phylum level. In the PA bacterioplankton, Proteobacteria (dominated by the Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria classes) was generally the most dominant phylum, with the relative abundance ranging from 57.41% to 98.10% (Figure 2), followed by Actinobacteria (from 0.66% to 16.91%, composed mainly of the Actinobacteria class), Bacteroidetes (from 0.05% to 35.76%, composed mainly of the Sphingobacteriia class), and Planctomycetes (from 0.49% to 2.18%, dominated by the Planctomycetia and Phycisphaerae classes), which cumulatively accounted for more than 99% of the bacterial sequences. In the FL bacterioplankton, Proteobacteria (dominated by the Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria classes) was also the most dominant phylum with the relative abundance ranging from 76.03% to 98.94% (Figure 2), followed by Actinobacteria (from 0.20% to 13.97%, mainly composed of the Actinobacteria class), Bacteroidetes (from 0.37% to 11.06%, dominated by the Flavobacteriia and Cytophagia classes), and Firmicutes (from 0.01% to 0.64%, mainly composed of the Clostridia class), which cumulatively accounted for more than 99% of the bacterial sequences.
The cultivation period and surfactin concentration also resulted in substantial changes in the relative abundances of the dominant taxa (Figure 2). In the PA bacterioplankton, the relative abundance of Sphingobacteriia reached 26.37−34.19% in the first 24 h and decreased to 0.05−0.84% later in the control and 0 mg/L surfactin samples, while the relative abundances of Alphaproteobacteria and Actinobacteria increased from 53.50−60.47% to 78.69−85.87%, and from 5.96−6.66% to 10.27−16.91%, respectively. In the treatments with 2 and 3 mg/L of surfactin, the relative abundance of Sphingobacteriia decreased from 31.58% at 0 h to near zero later, while the relative abundance of Alphaproteobacteria increased from 54.82% at 0 h to more than 87% later. In the FL bacterioplankton, the cultivation period had little effect on the bacterioplankton community composition in the control samples. The addition of ethanol and surfactin showed a negative effect on taxonomic composition, leading to marked decreases in the relative abundances of Gammaproteobacteria and Actinobacteria, and the increase in the relative abundance of Alphaproteobacteria.

3.3. General Patterns of Bacterioplankton Alpha Diversity

The observed total number of bacterial OTUs was 2113 in this study. In the comparison between size fractions, the OTU number of FL bacterioplankton (mean ± s.e., 324.00 ± 79.09) was significantly higher than that in PA bacterioplankton (240.43 ± 52.52) (p < 0.01), whereas the Chao1, Shannon–Wiener, and Simpson indices showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) (Table 1). For the values, the Chao1 (PA: 514.98 ± 157.90; FL: 597.15 ± 107.31), Shannon–Wiener (PA: 2.18 ± 0.25; FL: 2.27 ± 0.51), and Simpson (PA: 0.20 ± 0.05; FL: 0.21 ± 0.10) indices of FL bacterioplankton were higher than the PA bacterioplankton (Figure A1). In addition, the Shannon–Wiener indices of all and PA bacterioplankton were significantly affected by the changes in algal cell, and PA bacterioplankton was also significantly affected by the different cultivation periods (p < 0.05). Moreover, the Shannon–Wiener and Simpson indices of all and FL bacterioplankton were significantly affected by the different surfactin concentrations (p < 0.05) (Table 1).

3.4. Abundant, Rare, and Sensitive OTUs

The PA bacterioplankton was made up of 1281 OTUs, and FL bacterioplankton was comprised of 1651 OTUs. Among the 2113 OTUs observed in all samples, 13 OTUs were abundant OTUs, which accounted for 83.29% of the total sequences, and 2063 OTUs were rare OTUs, which accounted for 1.60% of the total sequences.
The heatmap plot illustrates the temporal pattern in distribution of sensitive OTUs (Figure 3). Only 16 sensitive OTUs were detected in the PA samples containing 6 abundant OTUs (Cytophagia and Alphaproteobacteria classes) and 2 rare OTUs (Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria classes), while 34 sensitive OTUs were found in the FL samples containing 7 abundant OTUs (Actinobacteria, Cytophagia, Alphaproteobacteria, and Gammaproteobacteria classes) and 5 rare OTUs (Alphaproteobacteria class) (for detailed species annotation information, see Table A2). Most abundant and rare OTUs detected as the sensitive OTUs had the highest relative abundance at 0 h, which then decreased as the surfactin concentration and cultivation time increased.

3.5. Effect of Size Fraction, Cultivation Period, Changes in Algal Cell, and Surfactin Concentration on the Bacterioplankton Community

To highlight the successional process of community dynamics, we obtained five NMDS ordination plots for the bacterioplankton community (Figure 4). All two-dimensional NMDS had stress values lower than 0.20, indicating that these ordination patterns were acceptable and bacterioplankton communities showed a distinct successional process in composition according to bacterial size fraction, cultivation period, and surfactin concentration. Furthermore, based on the OTUs detected across the samples, a PERMANOVA was performed to quantitatively evaluate the effects of bacterial cultivation period, changes in algal cell, surfactin concentration, and size fraction on the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity of community composition. The results showed that bacterioplankton community composition was significantly constrained by the size fraction (global R = 0.238, p = 0.001) and surfactin concentration (global R = 0.138, p = 0.001) on the whole (Table 2). Furthermore, surfactin concentration showed significant explanatory power to the variation of all, abundant, and rare PA bacterioplankton as well as all and abundant FL bacterioplankton, while cultivation period was only significantly associated with abundant and rare PA bacterioplankton, and changes in algal cells were only significantly associated with rare PA bacterioplankton.

3.6. Lifestyle Transition of Bacterioplankton

Bacterioplankton showed a transition or switching phenomenon between the two different lifestyles at the OTU and taxonomic levels. Overall, the majority of phyla/classes in the biosphere had a mean PAN index < 0.5, supporting a preference for the FL lifestyle during the sampling period (Figure 5). All abundant OTUs showed a strong transition from FL to PA lifestyle following the cultivation of C. curvisetus, especially for Actinobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria. For the rare OTUs, Actinobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria, and Gammaproteobacteria showed a strong transition from FL to PA lifestyle. Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Betaproteobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia tended to be more FL with the extension of cultivation time, while Cyanobacteria and Planctomycete preferred PA lifestyle.

4. Discussion

4.1. Inhibition Effect of Surfactin on Harmful Algae

The control of HABs means the early removal of the overpopulation within a relatively short time. In the present study, low concentrations of surfactin reduced the efficiency of the motility in C. curvisetus. When the surfactin concentration was greater than 3.0 mg/L, the population of C. curvisetus in the logarithmic phase was quickly destroyed and completely lysed within 48 h. Furthermore, ethanol is widely used as a carrier for a wide spectrum of medicines [37], but the effect of ethanol (carrier solvent) on C. curvisetus as a whole is largely unknown. Compared with the control group (pure seawater) and 0 mg/L surfactin treatment (seawater with 0.04 v/v % ethanol), there was almost no difference in algae abundance between two groups in the first 48 h, and algae abundance of 0 mg/L surfactin treatment decreased in the last 48 h (Figure 1), which means that the addition of ethanol may gradually lyse susceptible phytoplanktonic cells with extending cultivation time. Although ethanol can serve as a carbon source for cultivation of microalgae strains, a previous study reported that ethanol even at a concentration as low as 0.05 v/v %, could exert inhibition on Chlorella vulgaris and Selenastrum capricornutum growth [38], which was similar to our results.
Biosurfactants have potential for the selective control of harmful algae. For example, Gustafsson et al. (2009) [11] reported that 50 mg/L of the rhamnolipid was needed to kill diatom species Pseudonitzschia sp., while both Wang et al. (2005) [4] and Gustafsson et al. (2009) [11] elucidated that a concentration of 5 mg/L rhamnolipid was enough to cause a 100% algicidal effect on marine dinoflagellate species. Compared to the rhamnolipid experiments, Gong et al. (2006) [39] showed that the growth of C. curvisetus was strongly inhibited in a medium containing rhamnolipid (>7 mg/L), which suggested that surfactin (>3 mg/L) was more efficient than rhamnolipid at algae lysing. The primary site for cellular damage caused by biosurfactants is on the cytoplasmic membranes [40]. The different structures of biosurfactants confer different properties, including cell toxicity by interfering with cell membrane permeability. A likely explanation for the algicidal effect is that surfactin can inhibit fibrin clot formation [6], induce the formation of ion channels in lipid bilayer membranes [41], and block the activity of cyclic adenosine monophosphate [42], which eventually changes the rigidity of the cell membrane. The cell wall also plays a role in maintaining the membrane integrity [10] and different cell wall structures of the organisms were responsible for different effects of biosurfactants. For example, the protein and lipopolysaccharide moieties of the cell wall of Gram-negative bacteria could protect the cell membrane from surfactant attack [43].

4.2. Effects of Surfactin on Bacterioplankton Communities

Generally, the PA microbial communities have relatively low abundance and diversity compared with the FL microbial communities [44], which is consistent with our results (Figure A1). The PA fraction is relatively enriched in members of Gammaproteobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Planctomycetes [45,46], while the FL assemblages are often populated by members of Alphaproteobacteria and Deferribacteres [47,48]. A high proportion of overlap of the microbial compositions between PA and FL fractions implies that most microorganisms are potentially generalists, with dual PA and FL lifestyles for versatile metabolic flexibility [47]. In this study, Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes were the major overlapping phylum and classes in both the PA and FL microbial fractions (Figure 2). This pattern has been confirmed to be closely related to marine diatom blooms [49,50].
This preliminary study was intended to provide a glimpse into the varying trend of the bacterioplankton community in response to surfactin, and temporal variability did not conceal the surfactin-induced patterns. The concentrations of surfactin of more than 2 mg/L rapidly affected the bacterioplankton community composition (Figure 2), as observed in bacterial alpha diversity (Figure A1). Different degrees of response by FL and PA bacterioplankton communities to the surfactin concentration changes were found during the growth of C. curvisetus. The FL bacterioplankton community was more significantly related to the different concentrations of surfactin both in the diversity indices and community composition (Table 1 and Table 2), while the PA bacterioplankton community was quite conserved. Some studies have found that FL bacterioplankton appear to be more sensitive to environmental variables than PA bacterioplankton [51], which is similar to our results. Some studies have suggested that PA bacterioplankton communities may be more sensitive to global change stressors, including land use change, species invasions, and changes in geochemical cycles [52]. Recently, Tang et al. (2017) [22] found that environmental factors affected bacterial communities in much the same way regardless of bacterial lifestyles in Lake Taihu, China.
We first used the PAN index to quantitatively estimate the lifestyle alternation between FL and PA bacterioplankton at the phylum/class level in response to different concentrations of surfactin and the growth of the C. curvisetus. Despite differences between the FL and PA bacterial community composition (Figure 2 and Table 2), we found strong evidence of bacterial lifestyle shifts from FL to the PA states, especially for all abundant bacterioplankton and some rare bacterioplankton belonging to Actinobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria, and Gammaproteobacteria (Figure 5). This possible lifestyle transition has been detected through community composition, the production of exoenzymes, or community transcription patterns in marine environmental mesocosms [53] or in experimental mesocosms [54]. One possible explanation is that most of the marine bacterioplankton are generalists with dual-lifestyle strategies [55,56]. The other explanation is that bacterial populations may switch between FL and PA lifestyles depending on substrate availability and surrounding chemical triggers [21,57], such as the changes of surfactin concentration and C. curvisetus abundance in our study. Compared with FL bacterioplankton, PA bacterioplankton had several advantages in hydrolysis or the decomposition of marine organic matter, biomass production, and carbon cycling [58,59]. First, many of the PA bacterioplankton can be part of biofilms or zoogloeae. The PA lifestyle exhibits many advantages compared to that of FL planktonic bacteria, including protection from predators and many other environmental changes [60]. Second, the dynamics of PA bacterioplankton were more closely related to the growth of the C. curvisetus, compared to FL bacterioplankton (Table 1 and Table 2). Surfactin lysed algal cells and may increase bacterial adhesion surface area. The PA bacterioplankton have chemotaxis and motility, which allow for the coupling between PA bacterioplankton and phytoplankton, with bacteria gathering within the dissolved organic carbon (DOC)-rich “phycosphere” surrounding individual algal cells [61]. Finally, PA bacterioplankton generally have large and variable genomes that contain genes enabling a variety of metabolic capabilities, which are thought to equip cells to take advantage of patches of organic matter and adapt rapidly to a changing environment [62].

4.3. Sensitive Bacterial Taxa Associated with Surfactin on a Temporal Scale

The exploration of microbial taxa associated with surfactin could provide potential bioindicators. A comprehensive study suggested that if a certain taxon could be consistently and repeatedly detected at great abundance in a given location, there would be a high possibility that this taxon is environment-specific rather than a transient passer-by [63]. We extend this concept to propose that if a taxon shows frequent and stable correlation with the concentration of surfactin, it is possible that this taxon plays an important ecological role in response to surfactin exposure. In our study, there were six abundant OTUs and two rare OTUs in the PA-sensitive OTUs, while the FL-sensitive OTUs contained seven abundant OTUs and five rare OTUs (Figure 3). Abundant bacterioplankton had greater variation than rare bacterioplankton due to the different cultivation periods and surfactin concentrations (Figure 3 and Table 2), which may have been due to rare phylotypes (species) being protected from active loss because of their low abundance [64].
Sensitive bacterial taxa in our study belonged to the Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, and Planctomycetes phyla (Table A2). The rapid change in the abundance of sensitive bacterial taxa involves the properties of these bacterioplankton. One explanation is that sensitive bacterial taxa have fast generation times and short-lived population maxima [35]. For example, Alphaproteobacteria, especially members of the Rhodobacterales clade (in particular, OTUs 25 and 26, which were the abundant OTUs in the FL and PA samples, respectively) and the Rhizobiales clade (in particular, OTU 36206, which was an abundant OTU in the PA samples), were capable of rapidly changing their metabolic functioning in response to changing conditions, thus enhancing their competitive ability [65]. The other explanation is that sensitive bacterial taxa can be seen as fast-growing r-strategists that specialize in the initial attack of highly complex organic matter [49], such as surfactin. For example, Gammaproteobacteria, especially members of the Alteromonas–Pseudomonas–Vibrio group (especially OTU 194), are frequently characterized as r-strategists [66], colonizing quickly and promoting the growth of more specialized taxa. Carboxylate degradation enzymes were abundant in Gammaproteobacteria, which can degrade allochthonous organic matter [65]. Moreover, some studies have shown that Actinobacteria use lipids in the oceanic environment as a carbon source [67], such as surfactin in our study. Actinobacteria preferred an FL lifestyle at 0 h, and transitioned from FL to PA following the addition of surfactin and the cultivation of C. curvisetus (Figure 5). OTU 29 was an abundant OTU in the FL samples that belonged to Actinobacteria phylum and Pontimonas genus (Table A2). Genus Pontimonas species always have small genomes, which are said to be “streamlined” [68]. Streamlined bacteria deal with fewer secondary metabolites, are focused on fewer kinds of nutrient molecules, and tend to be FL, but the addition of surfactin changed their lifestyle. Future studies should explore the species functions of these sensitive bacterial taxa and how they respond to surfactin.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we studied surfactin toxicity to C. curvisetus and bacterioplankton community composition and examined the community dynamics of the PA and FL bacterioplankton in response to different surfactin concentrations and cultivation periods. However, our assessment was based on laboratory experimental data. Culture experiments could be biased due to the lack of communities from all trophic levels; sediment–water interactions; physical processes such as wind and water renewal, and seasonality; and spatial heterogeneity, thus reducing the complexity in situ [69]. Future investigations based on in situ mesocosms across larger temporal scales, especially for communities with various initial compositions derived from spatial heterogeneity, could be a promising strategy to validate and extend the observed effects of surfactin on the diversity, composition, and lifestyle of marine biota.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.S. and Z.Z.; methodology, Q.S. and Z.Z.; investigation, Q.S. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, Q.S.; data curation, Q.S.; visualization, Q.S.; writing–original draft preparation, Q.S.; funding acquisition, Q.S.; supervision, C.Z.; writing–review and editing, C.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Ningbo, grant number 2022J195; the Public Welfare Science and Technology Project of Ningbo, grant number 2022S116; the National Science and Technology Basic Resources Investigation Program of China, grant number 2018FY100206 and K.C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University (SS).

Data Availability Statement

The 16S rRNA gene sequences from this study have been deposited in the public NCBI database under the BioProject accession number PRJNA795844. The BioSample accession numbers are from SAMN30172296 to SAMN30172323.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Appendix A

Figure A1. α-diversity indices changes of particle-attached (PA) and free-living (FL) bacterioplankton in control group (pure seawater) and three surfactin treatments (0, 2 and 3 mg/L surfactin) throughout a 96-h cultivation period (0 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 96 h), including OTU number, Chao 1, Shannon–Wiener and Simpson index.
Figure A1. α-diversity indices changes of particle-attached (PA) and free-living (FL) bacterioplankton in control group (pure seawater) and three surfactin treatments (0, 2 and 3 mg/L surfactin) throughout a 96-h cultivation period (0 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 96 h), including OTU number, Chao 1, Shannon–Wiener and Simpson index.
Microorganisms 11 02596 g0a1
Table A1. Summary statistics of sequence counts for each bacterioplankton sample before and after quality filtering.
Table A1. Summary statistics of sequence counts for each bacterioplankton sample before and after quality filtering.
Size-FractionSurfactin
Concentration
Cultivation PeriodRaw ReadsClean ReadsOTU Numbers
Particle-attached bacterioplanktonControl0 h58,62657,675140
24 h83,02981,607161
48 h89,20687,793280
72 h73,33672,260240
96 h66,99965,830214
0 mg/h0 h58,62657,675140
24 h93,06191,474194
48 h86,71085,373312
72 h58,13257,194201
96 h84,57483,353255
2 mg/h0 h58,62657,675140
24 h80,28579,119282
48 h94,81493,409295
72 h114,815112,780318
96 h69,28468,173228
3 mg/h0 h58,62657,675140
24 h70,61569,275246
Free-living bacerioplanktonControl0 h70,92769,692300
24 h81,04879,802328
48 h85,59584,288458
72 h96,28894,789431
96 h73,92572,435357
0 mg/h0 h70,92769,692300
24 h90,50988,976409
48 h92,05090,149368
72 h82,26080,953276
96 h105,669103,971331
2 mg/h0 h70,92769,692300
24 h78,42077,285344
48 h92,29090,956209
72 h69,32068,329230
96 h86,36985,100174
3 mg/h0 h70,92769,692300
24 h76,43275,244321
Table A2. Summary species annotation of sensitive OTUs in the particle-attached (PA) and free-living (FL) bacterioplankton samples.
Table A2. Summary species annotation of sensitive OTUs in the particle-attached (PA) and free-living (FL) bacterioplankton samples.
Life ModeAbundance/RareOTUPhylumClassOrderFamilyGenus
PA/FLAbundanceOtu81BacteroidetesCytophagiaCytophagalesCyclobacteriaceaeAlgoriphagus
PAAbundanceOtu26ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeLoktanella
PAAbundanceOtu36206ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesPhyllobacteriaceaeunclassified
PA/FLAbundanceOtu66ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaCaulobacteralesHyphomonadaceaeOceanicaulis
PA/FLAbundanceOtu82ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeunclassified
PA/FLAbundanceOtu85ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaCaulobacteralesHyphomonadaceaeMaricaulis
PARareOtu36165ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeLitoreibacter
PARareOtu932ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaunclassifiedunclassifiedunclassified
PA/Otu11054BacteroidetesSphingobacteriiaSphingobacterialesSaprospiraceaePhaeodactylibacter
PA/Otu47BacteroidetesFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesunclassifiedunclassified
PA/Otu38331PlanctomycetesPhycisphaeraePhycisphaeralesPhycisphaeraceaePhycisphaera
PA/Otu34460ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodospirillalesRhodospirillaceaeunclassified
PA/Otu36340ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodospirillalesRhodospirillaceaeOceanibaculum
PA/Otu38329ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeOceanicola
PA/Otu71ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesRhizobiales_incertae_sedisAmorphus
PA/Otu194ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesAlteromonadaceaeAlteromonas
FLAbundanceOtu29ActinobacteriaActinobacteriaActinomycetalesMicrobacteriaceaePontimonas
FLAbundanceOtu25ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeOceanicola
FLAbundanceOtu40ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaGammaproteobacteria_incertae_sedisGammaproteobacteria_incertae_sedis_unclassifiedCongregibacter
FLRareOtu38334ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesBradyrhizobiaceaeBradyrhizobium
FLRareOtu38348ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesPhyllobacteriaceaeHoeflea
FLRareOtu38352ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesPhyllobacteriaceaeunclassified
FLRareOtu38361ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesHyphomicrobiaceaeHyphomicrobium
FLRareOtu38373ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesBradyrhizobiaceaeBosea
FL/Otu3189ActinobacteriaActinobacteriaAcidimicrobialesAcidimicrobiaceaeIlumatobacter
FL/Otu13342BacteroidetesCytophagiaCytophagalesFlammeovirgaceaeFabibacter
FL/Otu47BacteroidetesFlavobacteriiaFlavobacterialesunclassifiedunclassified
FL/Otu3347PlanctomycetesPlanctomycetiaPlanctomycetalesPlanctomycetaceaeRhodopirellula
FL/Otu34446ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeunclassified
FL/Otu34460ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodospirillalesRhodospirillaceaeunclassified
FL/Otu36177ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeunclassified
FL/Otu36181ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeSulfitobacter
FL/Otu36183ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaCaulobacteralesHyphomonadaceaeGlycocaulis
FL/Otu36190ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodospirillalesRhodospirillaceaeunclassified
FL/Otu36196ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaunclassifiedunclassifiedunclassified
FL/Otu36233ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesRhizobiales_incertae_sedisAmorphus
FL/Otu36340ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodospirillalesRhodospirillaceaeOceanibaculum
FL/Otu38329ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhodobacteralesRhodobacteraceaeOceanicola
FL/Otu71ProteobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaRhizobialesRhizobiales_incertae_sedisAmorphus
FL/Otu194ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesAlteromonadaceaeAlteromonas
FL/Otu204ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaGammaproteobacteria_incertae_sedisGammaproteobacteria_incertae_sedis_unclassifiedPseudohaliea
FL/Otu55ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesAlteromonadaceaeAliiglaciecola
FL/Otu56ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaAlteromonadalesAlteromonadaceaeMarinobacter
FL/Otu84ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaGammaproteobacteria_incertae_sedisGammaproteobacteria_incertae_sedis_unclassifiedPseudohaliea
FL/Otu892ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaOceanospirillalesunclassifiedunclassified
FL/Otu894ProteobacteriaGammaproteobacteriaunclassifiedunclassifiedunclassified

References

  1. Glibert, P.M.; Anderson, D.M.; Gentien, P.; Granéli, E.; Sellner, K.G. The global, complex phenomena of harmful algal blooms. Oceanography 2005, 18, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sengco, M.R. Prevention and control of Karenia brevis blooms. Harmful Algae 2009, 8, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahn, C.Y.; Joung, S.H.; Jeon, J.W.; Kim, H.S.; Yoon, B.D.; Oh, H.K. Selective control of cyanobacteria by surfactin-containing culture broth of Bacillus subtilis C1. Biotechnol. Lett. 2003, 25, 1137–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wang, X.; Gong, L.; Liang, S.; Han, X.; Zhu, C.; Li, Y. Algicidal activity of rhamnolipid biosurfactants produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Harmful Algae 2005, 4, 433–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mulligan, C.N. Environmental applications for biosurfactants. Environ. Pollut. 2005, 133, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Arima, K.; Kakinuma, A.; Tamura, G. Surfactin, a crystalline peptidelipid surfactant produced by Bacillus subtilis: Isolation, characterization and its inhibition of fibrin clot formation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1968, 31, 488–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Peypoux, F.; Bonmatin, J.M.; Wallach, J. Recent trends in the biochemistry of surfactin. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1999, 51, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ohno, A.; Ano, T.; Shoda, M. Production of a lipopeptide antibiotic, surfactin, by recombinant Bacillus subtilis in solid state fermentation. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1995, 47, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shaligram, N.S.; Singhal, R.S. Surfactin–A review on biosynthesis, fermentation, purification and applications. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2010, 48, 119–134. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sun, X.X.; Choi, J.K.; Kim, E.K. A preliminary study on the mechanism of harmful algal bloom mitigation by use of sophorolipid treatment. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2004, 304, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gustafsson, S.; Hultberg, M.; Figueroa, R.I.; Rengefors, K. On the control of HAB species using low biosurfactant concentrations. Harmful Algae 2009, 8, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shao, Q.; Lin, Z.; Zhou, C.; Zhu, P.; Yan, X. Succession of bacterioplankton communities over complete Gymnodinium-diatom bloom cycles. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 709, 135951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Begum, M.; Sahu, B.K.; Das, A.K.; Vinithkumar, N.V.; Kirubagaran, R. Extensive Chaetoceros curvisetus bloom in relation to water quality in Port Blair Bay, Andaman Islands. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Treasurer, J.W.; Hannah, F.; Cox, D. Impact of a phytoplankton bloom on mortalities and feeding response of farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in west Scotland. Aquaculture 2003, 218, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yang, C.Z.; Albright, L.J. Effects of the harmful diatom, Chaetoceros concavicornis on respiration of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Dis. Aquat. Org. 1992, 14, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Albright, L.J.; Yang, C.Z.; Johnson, S. Sub-lethal concentrations of the harmful diatoms, Chaetoceros concavicornis and C. convolutus, increase mortality rates of penned Pacific salmon. Aquaculture 1993, 117, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Satinsky, B.M.; Crump, B.C.; Smith, C.B.; Sharma, S.; Zielinski, B.L.; Doherty, M.; Meng, J.; Sun, S.; Medeiros, P.M.; Paul, J.H.; et al. Microspatial gene expression patterns in the Amazon River Plume. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 11085–11090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. King, G.M.; Kostka, J.E.; Hazen, T.C.; Sobecky, P.A. Microbial responses to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: From coastal wetlands to the deep sea. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. USA 2015, 7, 377–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stocker, R.; Seymour, J.R. Ecology and physics of bacterial chemotaxis in the ocean. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2012, 76, 792–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Simon, H.M.; Smith, M.W.; Herfort, L. Metagenomic insights into particles and their associated microbiota in a coastal margin ecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Grossart, H.P. Ecological consequences of bacterioplankton lifestyles: Changes in concepts are needed. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2010, 2, 706–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tang, X.; Chao, J.; Gong, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wilhelm, S.W.; Gao, G. Spatiotemporal dynamics of bacterial community composition in large shallow eutrophic Lake Taihu: High overlap between free-living and particle-attached assemblages. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2017, 62, 1366–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lynch, M.D.J.; Neufeld, J.D. Ecology and exploration of the rare biosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 13, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Grime, J.P. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: Immediate, filter and founder effects. J. Ecol. 1998, 86, 902–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Guillard, R. Culture of Marine Invertebrate Animals; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  26. Caporaso, J.G.; Kuczynski, J.; Stombaugh, J.; Bittinger, K.; Bushman, F.D.; Costello, E.K.; Fierer, N.; Peña, A.G.; Goodrich, J.K.; Gordon, J.; et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 2010, 7, 335–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Edgar, R.C.; Haas, B.J.; Clemente, J.C.; Quince, C.; Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2194–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Magoč, T.; Salzberg, S.L. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Quast, C.; Pruesse, E.; Yilmaz, P.; Gerken, J.; Schweer, T.; Yarza, P.; Peplies, J.; Glöckner, F.O. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 41, 590–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Edgar, R.C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 2460–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oksanen, J.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; Hara, B.O.; Simpson, G.L.; Solymos, P.; Henry, M.; Stevens, H.; Maintainer, H.W. The vegan package. Community Ecol. Package 2007, 10, 719. [Google Scholar]
  32. Galand, P.E.; Casamayor, E.O.; Kirchman, D.L.; Lovejoy, C. Ecology of the rare microbial biosphere of the Arctic Ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 22427–22432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, L.; Yang, J.; Yu, Z.; Wilkinson, D.M. The biogeography of abundant and rare bacterioplankton in the lakes and reservoirs of China. ISME J. 2015, 9, 2068–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Clarke, K.R.; Gorley, R.N.; Somerfield, P.J.; Warwick, R.M. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation; Plymouth Marine Laboratory: Plymouth, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  35. Salazar, G.; Cornejo-Castillo, F.M.; Borrull, E.; Díez-Vives, C.; Lara, E.; Vaqué, D.; Arrieta, J.M.; Duarte, C.M.; Gasol, J.M.; Acinas, S.G. Particle-association lifestyle is a phylogenetically conserved trait in bathypelagic prokaryotes. Mol. Ecol. 2015, 24, 5692–5706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Stegen, J.C.; Lin, X.; Fredrickson, J.K.; Chen, X.; Kennedy, D.W.; Murray, C.J.; Rockhold, M.L.; Konopka, A. Quantifying community assembly processes and identifying features that impose them. ISME J. 2013, 7, 2069–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Alzeer, J.; Hadeed, K.A. Ethanol and its Halal status in food industries. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 100, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. El Jay, A. Toxic effects of organic solvents on the growth of chlorella vulgaris and Selenastrum capicornutum. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1996, 57, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gong, L.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Zhu, C. The influence of rhamnolioid on the growth of diatom and its selective algal growth inhibitory action. China Environ. Sci. 2006, 26, 96–100. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nielsen, L.E.; Kadavy, D.R.; Rajagopal, S.; Drijber, R.; Nickerson, K.W. Survey of extreme solvent tolerance in gram-positive cocci: Membrane fatty acid changes in Staphylococcus haemolyticus grown in toluene. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 5171–5176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sheppard, J.D.; Jumarie, C.; Cooper, D.G.; Laprade, R. Ionic channels induced by surfactin in planar lipid bilayer membranes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA) Biomembr. 1991, 1064, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hosono, K.; Suzuki, H. Acylpeptides, the inhibitors of cyclic adenosine 3’, 5’-monophosphate phosphodiesterase. J. Antibiot. 1983, 36, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lang, S.; Wagner, F. Biological activities of biosurfactants. Biosurfactants Prod. Prop. Appl. 1993, 7, 251–268. [Google Scholar]
  44. Li, J.; Gu, L.; Bai, S.; Wang, J.; Su, L.; Wei, B.; Zhang, L.; Fang, J. Characterization of particle-associated and free-living bacterial and archaeal communities along the water columns of the South China Sea. Biogeosciences 2021, 18, 113–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Salazar, G.; Cornejo-Castillo, F.M.; Benítez-Barrios, V.; Fraile-Nuez, E.; Álvarez-Salgado, X.A.; Duarte, C.M.; Gasol, J.M.; Acinas, S.G. Global diversity and biogeography of deep-sea pelagic prokaryotes. ISME J. 2016, 10, 596–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Suter, E.A.; Pachiadaki, M.; Taylor, G.T.; Astor, Y.; Edgcomb, V.P. Free-living chemoautotrophic and particle-attached heterotrophic prokaryotes dominate microbial assemblages along a pelagic redox gradient. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 20, 693–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Crespo, B.G.; Pommier, T.; Fernández-Gómez, B.; Pedrós-Alió, C. Taxonomic composition of the particle-attached and free-living bacterial assemblages in the Northwest Mediterranean Sea analyzed by pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA. Microbiologyopen 2013, 2, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Milici, M.; Vital, M.; Tomasch, J.; Badewien, T.H.; Giebel, H.A.; Plumeier, I.; Wang, H.; Pieper, D.H.; Wagner-Döbler, I.; Simon, M. Diversity and community composition of particle-associated and free-living bacteria in mesopelagic and bathypelagic Southern Ocean water masses: Evidence of dispersal limitation in the Bransfield Strait. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2017, 62, 1080–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Teeling, H.; Fuchs, B.M.; Becher, D.; Klockow, C.; Gardebrecht, A.; Bennke, C.M.; Kassabgy, M.; Huang, S.; Mann, A.J.; Waldmann, J.; et al. Substrate-controlled succession of marine bacterioplankton populations induced by a phytoplankton bloom. Science 2012, 336, 608–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, H.; Wang, K.; Shen, L.; Chen, H.; Hou, F.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, D.; Zhu, X. Microbial community dynamics and assembly follow trajectories of an early-spring diatom bloom in a semienclosed bay. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e01000-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yung, C.M.; Ward, C.S.; Davis, K.M.; Johnson, Z.I.; Hunt, D.E. Insensitivity of diverse and temporally variable particle-associated microbial communities to bulk seawater environmental parameters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 3431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schmidt, M.L.; White, J.D.; Denef, V.J. Phylogenetic conservation of freshwater lake habitat preference varies between abundant bacterioplankton phyla. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 18, 1212–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rinta-Kanto, J.M.; Sun, S.; Sharma, S.; Kiene, R.P.; Moran, M.A. Bacterial community transcription patterns during a marine phytoplankton bloom. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 14, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Von Scheibner, M.; Dörge, P.; Biermann, A.; Sommer, U.; Hoppe, H.G.; Jürgens, K. Impact of warming on phyto-bacterioplankton coupling and bacterial community composition in experimental mesocosms. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 16, 718–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bauer, M.; Kube, M.; Teeling, H.; Richter, M.; Lombardot, T.; Allers, E.; Würdemann, C.A.; Quast, C.; Kuhl, H.; Knaust, F.; et al. Whole genome analysis of the marine Bacteroidetes ‘Gramella forsetii’ reveals adaptations to degradation of polymeric organic matter. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 8, 2201–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. González, J.M.; Fernández-Gómez, B.; Fernàndez-Guerra, A.; Gómez-Consarnau, L.; Sánchez, O.; Coll-Lladó, M.; Campo, J.; Escudero, J.; Rodríguez-Martínez, R.; Alonso-Sáez, L.; et al. Genome analysis of the proteorhodopsin-containing marine bacterium Polaribacter sp. MED152 (Flavobacteria). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 8724–8729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. D’ambrosio, L.; Ziervogel, K.; MacGregor, B.; Teske, A.; Arnosti, C. Composition and enzymatic function of particle-associated and free-living bacteria: A coastal/offshore comparison. ISME J. 2014, 8, 2167–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Turley, C.M.; Stutt, E.D. Depth-related cell-specific bacterial leucine incorporation rates on particles and its biogeochemical significance in the Northwest Mediterranean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2000, 45, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, S.; Riesen, A.; Liu, Z. Differentiating the role of different-sized microorganisms in peptide decomposition during incubations using size-fractioned coastal seawater. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2015, 472, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Berne, C.; Ellison, C.K.; Ducret, A.; Brun, Y.V. Bacterial adhesion at the single-cell level. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 616–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stocker, R. Marine microbes see a sea of gradients. Science 2012, 338, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Luo, H.; Moran, M.A. How do divergent ecological strategies emerge among marine bacterioplankton lineages? Trends Microbiol. 2015, 23, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fortunato, C.S.; Eiler, A.; Herfort, L.; Needoba, J.A.; Peterson, T.D.; Crump, B.C. Determining indicator taxa across spatial and seasonal gradients in the Columbia River coastal margin. ISME J. 2013, 7, 1899–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Pedrós-Alió, C. Marine microbial diversity: Can it be determined? Trends Microbiol. 2006, 14, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zhou, J.; Richlen, M.L.; Sehein, T.R.; Kulis, D.M.; Anderson, D.M.; Cai, Z. Microbial community structure and associations during a marine dinoflagellate bloom. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Weinbauer, M.G.; Christen, R.; Höfle, M.G. The response of Vibrio-and Rhodobacter-related populations of the NW Mediterranean Sea to additions of dissolved organic matter, phages, or dilution. Microb. Ecol. 2006, 51, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hugerth, L.W.; Larsson, J.; Alneberg, J.; Lindh, M.V.; Legrand, C.; Pinhassi, J.; Andersson, A.F. Metagenome-assembled genomes uncover a global brackish microbiome. Genome Biol. 2015, 16, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Giovannoni, S.J.; Thrash, J.C.; Temperton, B. Implications of streamlining theory for microbial ecology. ISME J. 2014, 8, 1553–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schindler, D.W. Whole-ecosystem experiments: Replication versus realism: The need for ecosystem-scale experiments. Ecosystems 1998, 1, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The culture abundance (104 cells/mL, mean ± SD) of Chaetoceros curvisetus in the control group (pure seawater) and six surfactin treatments (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mg/L surfactin) throughout a 96-h cultivation period. Data are expressed as means ± standard error (error bars).
Figure 1. The culture abundance (104 cells/mL, mean ± SD) of Chaetoceros curvisetus in the control group (pure seawater) and six surfactin treatments (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mg/L surfactin) throughout a 96-h cultivation period. Data are expressed as means ± standard error (error bars).
Microorganisms 11 02596 g001
Figure 2. Relative abundance of particle-attached and free-living bacterioplankton samples at the phylum and class levels. Control group (pure seawater) and two surfactin treatments (0 and 2 mg/L surfactin) were analyzed throughout a 96-h cultivation period, while 3 mg/L of the surfactin treatment was analyzed throughout a 24-h cultivation period.
Figure 2. Relative abundance of particle-attached and free-living bacterioplankton samples at the phylum and class levels. Control group (pure seawater) and two surfactin treatments (0 and 2 mg/L surfactin) were analyzed throughout a 96-h cultivation period, while 3 mg/L of the surfactin treatment was analyzed throughout a 24-h cultivation period.
Microorganisms 11 02596 g002
Figure 3. Heatmap of the relative abundance of sensitive operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at the class levels in the particle-attached and free-living bacterioplankton samples after lg transformation. Abundant OTUs are marked in the red boxes, while rare OTUs are marked in the green boxes.
Figure 3. Heatmap of the relative abundance of sensitive operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at the class levels in the particle-attached and free-living bacterioplankton samples after lg transformation. Abundant OTUs are marked in the red boxes, while rare OTUs are marked in the green boxes.
Microorganisms 11 02596 g003
Figure 4. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plots based on the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity of bacterioplankton community composition. All represents the whole bacterioplankton community including both particle-attached (PA) and free-living (FL) bacterioplankton. Abundant indicates abundant taxa, while rare indicates rare taxa. Different colors represent different cultivation periods (0 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 96 h). Different shapes represent control group (pure seawater) and three surfactin treatments (0, 2 and 3 mg/L surfactin), while solid shapes indicate PA bacterioplankton, and hollow shapes indicate FL bacterioplankton.
Figure 4. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plots based on the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity of bacterioplankton community composition. All represents the whole bacterioplankton community including both particle-attached (PA) and free-living (FL) bacterioplankton. Abundant indicates abundant taxa, while rare indicates rare taxa. Different colors represent different cultivation periods (0 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 96 h). Different shapes represent control group (pure seawater) and three surfactin treatments (0, 2 and 3 mg/L surfactin), while solid shapes indicate PA bacterioplankton, and hollow shapes indicate FL bacterioplankton.
Microorganisms 11 02596 g004
Figure 5. Particle-association niche (PAN) index of the abundant and rare bacterial taxa at the phylum/class level in the control group (pure seawater) and three surfactin treatments (0, 2 and 3 mg/L surfactin). The vertical dashed line corresponds to a 0.5 PAN index, which indicates that the relative abundance of free-living bacterioplankton is equal to that of particle-attached bacterioplankton. Error bars indicate standard errors of the PAN index of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) belonging to each phylum/class. Data are expressed as means ± standard error (error bars).
Figure 5. Particle-association niche (PAN) index of the abundant and rare bacterial taxa at the phylum/class level in the control group (pure seawater) and three surfactin treatments (0, 2 and 3 mg/L surfactin). The vertical dashed line corresponds to a 0.5 PAN index, which indicates that the relative abundance of free-living bacterioplankton is equal to that of particle-attached bacterioplankton. Error bars indicate standard errors of the PAN index of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) belonging to each phylum/class. Data are expressed as means ± standard error (error bars).
Microorganisms 11 02596 g005
Table 1. F-values and p-values of one-way ANOVA testing the effects of size fraction (SF), cultivation period (CP), changes in algal cell (AC), and surfactin concentration (SC) on the operational taxonomic unit (OTU) number and alpha diversity indices of all, particle-attached (PA), and free-living (FL) bacterial communities.
Table 1. F-values and p-values of one-way ANOVA testing the effects of size fraction (SF), cultivation period (CP), changes in algal cell (AC), and surfactin concentration (SC) on the operational taxonomic unit (OTU) number and alpha diversity indices of all, particle-attached (PA), and free-living (FL) bacterial communities.
FactorsAll Bacteria
(n = 28)
PA Bacteria
(n = 14)
FL Bacteria
(n = 14)
SFCPACSCCPACSCCPACSC
OTU number10.07 **0.011.150.031.103.151.800.630.051.22
Chao 12.410.450.020.183.040.053.401.360.013.47
Shannon–Wiener0.322.104.39 *11.46 **6.03 *5.57 *3.000.283.969.13 *
Simpson0.011.903.4011.26 **3.330.912.370.362.349.50 **
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. Quantitative effects of size fraction (SF), cultivation period (CP), changes in algal cell (AC), and surfactin concentration (SC) on the variations in bacterioplankton community composition based on permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA). All represents the whole bacterioplankton community including both particle-attached (PA) and free-living (FL) bacterioplankton. Abundant indicates abundant taxa, while rare indicates rare taxa.
Table 2. Quantitative effects of size fraction (SF), cultivation period (CP), changes in algal cell (AC), and surfactin concentration (SC) on the variations in bacterioplankton community composition based on permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA). All represents the whole bacterioplankton community including both particle-attached (PA) and free-living (FL) bacterioplankton. Abundant indicates abundant taxa, while rare indicates rare taxa.
PERMANOVAALLPAFL
AllAbundantRareAllAbundantRare
Size-fraction0.238 **------
Cultivation period0.0650.3710.228 *0.127 **0.2770.0630.095
Changes in algal cell0.040.110.130.19 *0.070.050.08
Surfactin concentration0.138 **0.320 *0.339 **0.109 *0.445 **0.359 **0.098
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shao, Q.; Zhu, Z.; Zhou, C. Alteration in Community Dynamics of Chaetoceros curvisetus and Bacterioplankton Communities in Response to Surfactin Exposure. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2596. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11102596

AMA Style

Shao Q, Zhu Z, Zhou C. Alteration in Community Dynamics of Chaetoceros curvisetus and Bacterioplankton Communities in Response to Surfactin Exposure. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(10):2596. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11102596

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shao, Qianwen, Zhujun Zhu, and Chengxu Zhou. 2023. "Alteration in Community Dynamics of Chaetoceros curvisetus and Bacterioplankton Communities in Response to Surfactin Exposure" Microorganisms 11, no. 10: 2596. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11102596

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop