Next Article in Journal
Harnessing the Power of Microbiome Assessment Tools as Part of Neuroprotective Nutrition and Lifestyle Medicine Interventions
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of UVC Radiation on Hydrated and Desiccated Cultures of Slightly Halophilic and Non-Halophilic Methanogenic Archaea: Implications for Life on Mars
Previous Article in Journal
Intracellular Bacterial Infections: A Challenge for Developing Cellular Mediated Immunity Vaccines for Farmed Fish
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Non-Psychrophilic Methanogens Capable of Growth Following Long-Term Extreme Temperature Changes, with Application to Mars

1
Arkansas Center for Space and Planetary Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
2
American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC 20036, USA
3
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2018, 6(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6020034
Submission received: 26 March 2018 / Revised: 13 April 2018 / Accepted: 16 April 2018 / Published: 23 April 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anaerobic Microorganisms in Mars)

Abstract

:
Although the martian environment is currently cold and dry, geomorphological features on the surface of the planet indicate relatively recent (<4 My) freeze/thaw episodes. Additionally, the recent detections of near-subsurface ice as well as hydrated salts within recurring slope lineae suggest potentially habitable micro-environments within the martian subsurface. On Earth, microbial communities are often active at sub-freezing temperatures within permafrost, especially within the active layer, which experiences large ranges in temperature. With warming global temperatures, the effect of thawing permafrost communities on the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane becomes increasingly important. Studies examining the community structure and activity of microbial permafrost communities on Earth can also be related to martian permafrost environments, should life have developed on the planet. Here, two non-psychrophilic methanogens, Methanobacterium formicicum and Methanothermobacter wolfeii, were tested for their ability to survive long-term (~4 year) exposure to freeze/thaw cycles varying in both temperature and duration, with implications both for climate change on Earth and possible life on Mars.

1. Introduction

On Earth, permafrost is defined by temperature and refers to any rocks, soil, or sediments that remain at or below 0 °C for at least two years in a row [1,2]. Permafrost environments typically range between −50 °C and 30 °C, subjecting their microbial communities to large freeze/thaw cycles not encountered elsewhere. On Mars, temperatures vary widely over one sol, often ranging between just above freezing during the day to below −100 °C at night [3], constituting rapid freeze/thaw cycles. Additionally, geomorphological features on the planet such as polygonal patterned ground, thermokarst lakes, and pingo-scars suggest the presence of ice-rich permafrost and point to a warmer, wetter Mars in the relatively recent past [4]. Similarly, Gallagher et al. [5] conclude that high-latitude periglacial landforms are “evidence of the protracted, widespread action of thaw liquids on and within the martian surface” occurring within the last few million years. The authors propose that perchlorate salts, detected by the Phoenix lander, contribute to martian freeze/thaw cycles, resulting in the periglacial geomorphology of the planet [5]. In a separate study, Johnsson et al. [6] also contend that geomorphological features provide evidence for freeze/thaw activity within the last few million years on Mars and suggest that the planet may have a more widespread and cyclic freeze/thaw process than previously thought.
In the search for life elsewhere in the solar system, and on Mars in particular, methanogens can be considered plausible candidates. Methanogens are microorganisms from the domain Archaea that produce methane (CH4) from substrates such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2), among others. Methanogens are often significant members of microbial permafrost communities [1,7,8,9,10,11,12,13] and the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from thawing permafrost is becoming a growing concern amid Earth’s warming temperatures [14,15,16,17,18,19]. Due to their anaerobic nature and ability to use inorganic carbon (e.g., CO2) for growth and metabolism, methanogens have also been considered candidates for possible life on Mars. The detection of methane in the martian atmosphere [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] although controversial [29], also supports the study of methanogens as a possibility for life on Mars. A variety of studies have investigated the growth and survival of specific methanogen species under various martian conditions including low pressure [30,31,32,33,34], salt concentration [35,36,37], and regolith composition [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46], as well as freeze/thaw cycles relevant to Mars [47,48].
Recently, Walz et al. [49] monitored the production of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from Siberian tundra soils over 150 days in both incubation and freeze/thaw experiments. The authors discovered that methanogenesis was prevalent only within the active layer, with no methane produced within 150 days from permafrost samples. In a 60-day freeze/thaw experiment, Walz et al. [49] found that neither methane production rates nor amounts within soils incubated at 4 °C were significantly different from methane produced by samples incubated at −18 °C for seven days in the middle of the experiment. Thus, a freeze-thaw cycle had no effect on methanogenesis. However, the authors also found that methanogenesis decreased with soil depth and methane production continued to increase over the 150-day incubation period [49]. In a study on methanogenic communities within thawing permafrost in the Tibetan Plateau, Wei et al. [50] discovered that while methanogen abundance does not change in response to freezing or thawing, methanogenesis increases during thaw periods (as evidenced by both methane production and transcriptional activity of the mcrA gene [mcrA is one of three genes that encode methyl coenzyme M reductase, the catalyst for the terminal step in biogenic methane production, and thus, is present in all methanogens]). Many studies also indicate a shift in the dominant methanogenic orders between frozen and thawed samples, and although methanogenic communities typically vary by environment [15,16,51,52], methanogens within the order Methanosarcinales often comprise the principal order in thawed samples [9,10,50,53,54,55]. Methanogens within the order Methanobacteriales are present in both frozen and thawed permafrost samples at consistent, but low, levels (e.g., 1.3% in frozen samples, 1.8% in thawed samples [50]; see also Coolen and Orsi [15]; Ren et al. [55]; Tveit et al. [18]), providing support for the use of the two methanogens from the order Methanobacteriales in this study. Further support for the use of Methanobacterium formicicum is evident in the dominance of a Methanobacterium species across three separate ancient permafrost samples tested (19, 27, 33 kyr permafrost, Fox, Alaska; Mackelprang et al. [56]). The existence of methanogens within ancient permafrost samples also has relevance to Mars, should methanogens have arisen earlier on in the planet’s history when conditions were warmer and wetter and may now reside within permafrost. Lastly, an analysis of thawed Alaskan permafrost soils found Methanosarcina barkeri, a mesophile, responsible for the majority of methane production (as assessed through mcrA transcripts; Coolen and Orsi [15]), which also supports the use of non-psychrophilic methanogens in freeze/thaw studies.
Experiments utilizing freeze/thaw cycles have come under scrutiny for not accurately representing temperature changes seen in nature [57]. However, temperatures can vary widely based on location, season, and whether measurements are taken from the air or soil at varying depths [57]. For example, Zhang et al. [58] analyzed temperature data from 1997 to 1999 within the contiguous United States. The authors discovered that duration of soil freezing ranges between one and eight months, and the number of freeze-thaw cycles that occurs ranges from one to more than eleven, based on location. Additionally, the frozen period of freeze-thaw cycles varied in length from less than twenty days to over 220 days. Thus, over a single season, “a soil freeze/thaw cycle can occur several times, and the length of freeze and thaw within one freeze/thaw cycle may not be symmetric” [58]. As such, previous freeze/thaw experiments have used a variety of cycle lengths, number of cycles, and temperatures (Table 1; see also Henry [57]). Thus, the number of cycles, cycle length, and the temperatures used within the experiments described here, although varied, still reflect important environmental factors possibly encountered by either terrestrial or proposed extraterrestrial microorganisms (such as on Mars).
The experiments conducted here aimed to investigate the effect of long-term (~4 year) freeze/thaw cycles varying in temperature and duration on the methane production of two non-psychrophilic methanogen species within the order Methanobacteriales, M. formicicum and Methanothermobacter wolfeii. These experiments incorporated the use of varying amounts of liquid medium and sand in order to provide additional stress(es) to the microorganisms and to incorporate environmental factors, in an attempt to mimic a possible subsurface environment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Microbial Procedures

Methanogens were initially obtained from the Oregon Collection of Methanogens (OCM) (Portland State University, Portland, Oregon). Two methanogen species were cultured in their respective anaerobic growth medium: M. formicicum (OCM 55), MS medium supplemented with sodium formate (designated MSF medium) [70] and M. wolfeii (OCM 36), MM medium [71]. MSF medium contains the following per liter: 4.0 g NaOH, 1.0 g NH4Cl, 1.0 g MgCl2·6H2O, 0.4 g CaCl2·2H2O, 0.4 g K2HPO4·3H2O, 1.0 mg resazurin, 5.0 mg Na2-EDTA·2H2O, 1.5 mg CoCl2·6H2O, 1.0 mg MnCl2©4H2O, 1.0 mg FeSO4·7H2O, 1.0 mg ZnCl2, 0.4 mg AlCl3·6H2O, 0.3 mg Na2WO4·H2O, 0.2 mg CuCl2·2H2O, 0.2 mg NiSO4·6H2O, 0.1 mg H2SeO3, 0.1 mg H3BO3, 0.1 mg NaMoO4·2H2O, 2.0 g yeast extract, 2.0 g trypticase peptone, 0.5 g sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate and 0.25 g sodium formate. MM is a minimal medium that contains the same components as MSF medium except yeast extract, trypticase peptone, sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate and sodium formate. All of the media were sparged with 100% CO2 gas prior to distribution into test tubes.
For each experiment, growth media were prepared under anaerobic conditions in a 90:10 CO2:H2 Coy Anaerobic Chamber (Coy Laboratory Products, Inc., Grass Lake Charter Township, MI, USA) following the methods of Kendrick and Kral [72]. In general, 10 mL medium (MSF or MM) were added to each of five anaerobic culture tubes to provide five replicates per set. The tubes were fitted with rubber stoppers and aluminum crimps, sealing the tubes under anaerobic conditions [70]. The media were sterilized via autoclave, after which ~125 μL of 2.5% sodium sulfide (Na2S) were added to each tube to remove residual oxygen [70]. Each tube was inoculated with 0.5 mL of the corresponding methanogen culture (MSF medium: M. formicicum; MM medium: M. wolfeii). The tubes were then pressurized with 2 bar H2 and placed at the organisms’ respective incubation temperatures (M. formicicum, 37 °C; M. wolfeii, 55 °C). Deviations from this standard protocol for each experiment are given in Section 2.2, Section 2.3 , Section 2.4, Section 2.5, below.

2.2. Experiment 1: Growth at 4 °C and 22 °C

Media were prepared as described (see Section 2.1 Microbial Procedures) for each methanogen species. For both species, there were four replicates for each temperature (4 °C and 22 °C). Organisms were inoculated with 0.5 mL culture and test tubes were kept at the desired temperature for the duration of the experiment. Growth was monitored over 140 days by methane production via gas chromatography.

2.3. Experiment 2: 5 g Sand, 10 mL Medium

Two types of methanogen growth media (MSF, MM) were prepared as described (see Section 2.1 Microbial Procedures). Two separate sets were prepared (one for each of two organisms) and transfer sets were also prepared as described below. Specific inoculation schemes between original and transfer sets can be found in the supplementary material.
Five grams of sand were added to each of 10 test tubes, with five tubes containing 10 mL MSF medium, and five tubes containing 10 mL MM methanogen growth medium (see Section 2.1 Microbial Procedures). The MSF tubes were inoculated with 0.5 mL of MSF medium containing M. formicicum (n = 4). The MM test tubes were inoculated with 0.5 mL of MM medium containing M. wolfeii (n = 4). One test tube for each medium type was not inoculated. After inoculation, each tube was pressurized with 2 bar H2 gas. The tubes were next subjected to varying freeze/thaw cycles at temperatures of 55 °C, 37 °C, 22 °C, 4 °C, −15 °C, and −80 °C (Table 2).
After 104 days, a transfer set was prepared following the same method as above. On Day 105, the five transfer tubes with MM medium were each inoculated with 0.5 mL from one tube from the MM Original Set (n = 5, Figure S1). The four tubes with MSF medium were each inoculated with 0.5 mL from one tube from the MSF Original Set (n = 4, Figure S2). The transfer set was then subjected to various freeze/thaw cycles (Table 2). On Day 179, a second transfer set was prepared following the methods above. In this set, each MM transfer tube was inoculated with 0.5 mL culture from the corresponding MM tube in Transfer Set 1 (Figure S1). Two MSF transfer tubes were inoculated from one tube in MSF Transfer Set and two additional MSF transfer tubes were inoculated from two different tubes in MSF Transfer Set 1 (Figure S2). Tubes within Transfer Set 2 were then subjected to various freeze/thaw cycles (Table 2). On Day 1490, a third transfer set was prepared following the methods above. This set contained only 10 mL medium (either MSF or MM) and did not include any sand. In this set, on Day 1494, each of the tubes (MSF: n = 4; MM: n = 5) was inoculated with 0.5 mL from the corresponding tube in Transfer Set 2 (Figures S1 and S2). These tubes were incubated at the organisms’ respective growth temperatures (Table 2).

2.4. Experiment 3: 10 g Sand, 5 mL Medium

Two types of methanogen growth media (MSF, MM) were prepared, as noted above (see Section 2.1 Microbial Procedures). Two separate sets were prepared (one for each of two organisms) and transfer sets were also prepared as described below. Ten grams of sand were added to each of seven test tubes, with four tubes containing 5 mL MSF medium, and three tubes containing 5 mL MM methanogen growth medium (see Section 2.1 Microbial Procedures, above). The MSF tubes were inoculated with 0.5 mL of MSF medium containing M. formicicum (n = 4). The MM test tubes were inoculated with 0.5 mL of MM medium containing M. wolfeii (n = 3). After inoculation, each tube was pressurized with 2 bar H2 gas. The tubes were next subjected to varying freeze/thaw cycles at temperatures of 55 °C, 37 °C, 22 °C, 4 °C, −15 °C, and −80 °C (Table 3 and Table 4).
After 90 days, a transfer set was prepared following the same method as above. On Day 91, two transfer tubes with MM medium were each inoculated with 0.5 mL from one tube from the MM Original Set. The remaining transfer tube with MM medium was inoculated with 0.5 mL from a different tube from the MM Original Set (n = 3, Figure S3). The four tubes with MSF medium were each inoculated with 0.5 mL from one tube from the MSF Original Set (n = 4, Figure S4). This transfer set was then subjected to various freeze/thaw cycles (Table 3 and Table 4). On Day 190, a second transfer set was prepared following the methods above. In this set, three MM tubes were inoculated with 0.5 mL from one MM Transfer Set 1 tube and two MM tubes were inoculated with 0.5 mL from a different MM Transfer Set 1 tube (n = 5, Figure S3). Three MSF tubes were inoculated with 0.5 mL from one MSF Transfer Set 1 tube and one MSF tube was inoculated with 0.5 mL from a different MSF Transfer Set 1 tube (n = 4, Figure S4). After inoculation, Transfer Set 2 tubes were next subjected to various freeze/thaw cycles (Table 3 and Table 4). On Day 1467, Transfer Set 2 tubes were removed from a −80 °C freezer and thawed at room temperature for seven days (Table 3 and Table 4). A third transfer set was prepared with 10 mL medium (no sand) for both organisms as mentioned above (see Section 2.1 Microbial Procedures). On Day 1474, each tube within Transfer Set 3 was inoculated with 0.5 mL culture from the corresponding tube in Transfer Set 2 (Figures S3 and S4). The tubes were incubated at the organisms’ respective growth temperatures and monitored for methane production.

2.5. Experiment 4: 5 mL Medium

This experiment focused on long-term survival to freeze/thaw cycles in media alone (no sand or regolith). Cultures of M. formicicum (n = 5) and M. wolfeii (n = 5) were initially grown in their respective anaerobic growth media (see Section 2.1 Microbial Procedures). Test tubes contained 5 mL media (MSF, M. formicicum; MM, M. wolfeii) and were inoculated with 0.5 mL culture. Tubes were pressurized with 2 bar H2 and incubated at the organisms’ growth temperature (M. wolfeii: 55 °C; M. formicicum: 37 °C) for 17 days. The cultures were then exposed to varying freeze/thaw cycles for 126 days (Table 5). On Day 126, the cultures were transferred to a −80 °C freezer for 1151 days (3 years, 1 month). On Day 1154, fresh media (10 mL per test tube) were prepared as described above (see Section 2.1 Microbial Procedures). This transfer set was inoculated with 0.5 mL culture from the corresponding tube in the original set on Day 1158 (Figure S5). The tubes were kept at the organisms’ respective growth temperatures for 28 days.

3. Results

3.1. Experiment 1: Growth at 4 °C and 22 °C

Methane production did not occur for either methanogen species (M. formicicum or M. wolfeii) after 140 days’ incubation at 4 °C (data not shown). M. formicicum was able to produce methane at 22 °C, however, M. wolfeii was not capable of any methane production after 140 days at 22 °C (Figure 1).

3.2. Experiment 2: 5 g Sand, 10 mL Medium

The original sets for both M. wolfeii and M. formicicum consisted of n = 4 replicates (one tube in each set of 5 was not inoculated). Both transfer sets for M. wolfeii consisted of n = 5 tubes. The transfer sets for M. formicicum both consisted of n = 4 tubes.
Methane production for the four cultures within the original set for M. formicicum all displayed ~3% methane production after 5 days (data not shown). After an additional 9 days at 37 °C, methane abundance was much more varied between replicates (~22–42%, Figure 2). After Transfer Set 1 was inoculated and incubated at room temperature for 22 days, methane production within the four replicates ranged between 26% and 34% methane (Figure 2). Additionally, after inoculation and incubation at 37 °C for 17 days, four cultures within Transfer Set 2 displayed methane amounts between 22% and 25% (Figure 2). The lower amount of methane produced by the cultures within Transfer Set 2 may be the result of a lower number of cells in the transfer inoculum and does not necessarily represent cell death.
Initial methane production for cultures of M. wolfeii reached ~38% methane following 14 days of incubation at 55 °C (Figure 3). After Transfer Set 1 was inoculated, four of the five cultures displayed methane amounts between 2% and 4% after 7 days’ incubation at room temperature (data not shown). After an additional 15 days at room temperature, all five cultures increased in methane abundance, despite the lack of methane production by M. wolfeii at 22 °C over 140 days in Experiment 1 (Figure 1), but amounts varied between 17% and 28% (Figure 3). The culture with the lowest methane value (17%) after 22 days corresponds to the culture that showed no methane production (0%) after 7 days’ incubation at room temperature. In the second transfer set, all five cultures displayed methane production after 17 days at 55 °C (19–24%; Figure 3). Similar to the cultures of M. formicicum, the decrease in methane amount between the three sets of replicates is not necessarily attributable to cell death and may be the result of fewer cells in the transfer inocula.
This experiment also examined survival following long-term exposure to freezing temperatures. Tubes within Transfer Set 2 were subjected to various freeze/thaw cycles, then kept at −80 °C for ~3 years (Table 2). The tubes were removed from the freezer, thawed at room temperature for 7 days, and then transfers were made to 10 mL fresh media. These new transfer tubes (Transfer Set 3) were stored at the organisms’ respective incubation temperatures and monitored for methane production. For M. formicicum, none of the cultures produced methane up to 28 days following inoculation (Figure 2). For M. wolfeii, four out of five cultures displayed high methane production (30–33% headspace) after 14 days’ incubation at 55 °C (Figure 3). One culture failed to produce any methane after 14 days’ incubation and is not included in the data shown here.

3.3. Experiment 3: 10 g Sand, 5 mL Medium

There were n = 4 tubes each for the Original Set, Transfer Set 1, and Transfer Set 2 for cultures of M. formicicum. For M. formicicum, methane production was nearly negligible (<1% headspace) for the four tubes within the Original Set after the initial incubation period of 18 days at 4 °C followed by 7 days at 37 °C (Figure 4). In Transfer Set 1, after 55 days’ incubation at 37 °C, three cultures measured 20–26% methane while one measured ~6% methane, resulting in the large error bar for the data shown for Transfer Set 1 (Figure 4). In Transfer Set 2, the four cultures produced varied amounts of methane ranging between 2% and 13% (Figure 4).
For M. wolfeii, three cultures produced an average of ~28% methane following the initial incubation period of 18 days at 4 °C followed by 7 days at 55 °C. In Transfer Set 1 for M. wolfeii, the three cultures failed to produce methane following inoculation from the Original Set following 55 days at 37 °C. After an additional 14 days at 55 °C, methane production resumed ranging between 4% and 19% for the three replicates, resulting in the large error bar seen in Figure 5. In Transfer Set 2, of the five cultures for M. wolfeii, two produced 22–25% methane after the initial incubation period (17 days at 55 °C), while the other three produced 6–11% methane, resulting in a large error bar for this set as shown in Figure 5.
It is important to note that the freeze/thaw cycling for Transfer Set 2 for both M. formicicum and M. wolfeii were not identical (Table 3 and Table 4). The reason for the difference was to allow additional time for M. wolfeii cultures to grow, should they be able, after methane production was not seen following the initial incubation period of 55 days at 37 °C for this set.
Replicates within Transfer Set 3 were used to determine if any cells survived freeze/thaw cycling followed by ~3 years at −80 °C. No cultures of either M. formicicum or M. wolfeii displayed methane production after 28 days’ incubation (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

3.4. Experiment 4: 5 mL Medium

This experiment aimed to assess survival under long-term freeze/thaw conditions. Tubes were subjected to 126 days of freeze/thaw cycles, then stored at −80 °C. After ~3 years at −80 °C and transfer to fresh media, two out of five cultures of M. wolfeii showed appreciable methane production (12.8%, 31.0% headspace) after 14 days’ incubation at 55 °C. The methane abundance within these two cultures increased with another 14 days’ incubation at 55 °C (28.5%, 33.6% methane, respectively), with a third culture producing ~7% methane (Figure 6). The two remaining replicates showed no methane production after 28 days and are not included in the data shown in Figure 6. No methane was produced by cultures of M. formicicum after 28 days’ incubation at 37 °C (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

4.1. Experiment 1: Growth at 4 °C and 22 °C

These data provide a comparison for the subsequent freeze/thaw cycle data. No growth was possible at 4 °C after 140 days for either methanogen, and thus, methane production (cell growth) was not expected during the brief exposures to 4 °C during the subsequent freeze/thaw cycling experiments. Growth was possible at room temperature (22 °C) for M. formicicum (Figure 1), but not for M. wolfeii, a thermophile, with the highest optimum growth temperature tested here. As such, the subsequent freeze/thaw cycling experiments constitute survival experiments, although the return of active metabolism (methane production, growth) may be possible during brief exposures to 22 °C (for M. formicicum) or higher. The optimum temperature for growth for M. formicicum is 37 °C, but certain strains are capable of growth down to 20–25 °C [73]. When initially isolated, cultures of M. wolfeii did not display growth below 37 °C with optimal growth occurring between 55 °C and 65 °C [74]. Interestingly, in Expt. 2, cultures of M. wolfeii displayed methane (>1%) production after only 7 days’ incubation at room temperature, despite the lack of methane production over 140 days at room temperature in Expt. 1 (Figure 1). This phenomenon remains unexplained but does serve to highlight the resiliency of certain species to adapt to changing temperatures. A possible explanation for the growth of cultures of M. wolfeii at 22 °C may be due to growth being initiated earlier at a higher temperature, as is required by Methanococcoides burtonii (see below; Franzmann et al. [75]).
Psychrotolerant methanogens exist in pure culture that can actively grow at temperatures down to 1 °C [75,76,77,78,79], but most isolated species have maximum growth temperatures above 23 °C (Table 6; [11,80,81,82,83,84,85,86]). Two exceptions are Methanogenium frigidum, which grows maximally at 15 °C with a doubling time of 2.9 days [87] and Methanolobus psychrophilus, with an optimum temperature of 18 °C [88]. At low temperatures, the growth rates of both psychrophilic and psychrotolerant species are exceptionally slow such that experiments with these organisms are not conducive to student research timeframes. Additionally, other psychrophilic methanogens, such as Methanococcoides burtonii, isolated from Ace Lake in Antarctica, are capable of growth at low temperatures (e.g., 1.7 °C) only after growth is initiated at higher temperature (e.g., 20 °C) [75]. Attempts to culture older stocks of M. frigidum at 4 °C using H2/CO2 with and without acetate were unsuccessful in this lab.

4.2. Experiment 2: 5 g Sand, 10 mL Medium, Experiment 3: 10 g Sand, 5 mL Medium, Experiment 4: 5 mL Medium

Experiments 2, 3, and 4 exposed a mesophile, M. formicicum, and a thermophile, M. wolfeii to a variety of extreme temperature changes over time (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). As evidenced by Experiment 1, growth was not expected at 4 °C nor 22 °C for M. wolfeii. Growth was not expected at 4 °C for M. formicicum but was possible at room temperature (22 °C, Figure 1). Thus, the freeze/thaw cycling for Experiments 2 and 3 are considered survival experiments for two non-psychrophilic methanogen species subjected to temperatures between 37 °C or 55 °C and −80 °C (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4), although resumed metabolism could occur at warmer temperatures. In a study focusing on methanogens in a high Arctic wetland sediment, Blake et al. [51] discovered a strong dependence on temperature for both methane production and methanogen community structure. Additionally, studies indicate that methanogenic permafrost communities may be able to respond rapidly (e.g., within 24 h) to short-term increases in temperature [17,51].
The production of methane within transfer tubes for Experiments 2 and 3 indicates that cells of both M. formicicum (Figure 2 and Figure 4) and M. wolfeii (Figure 3 and Figure 5) were able to tolerate freeze/thaw cycling and resume active metabolism (methane production) once appropriate temperatures were reached. These studies did not include cell counts and so the specific percentage of survival from the original inoculum is unknown. It also may not be possible to directly compare the amount of methane produced by each set (Original, Transfer 1, Transfer 2, Transfer 3; Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5) based on possible differences in inoculum size (i.e., the exact number of cells contained within 0.5 mL culture that served as inoculum). However, the key point remains that a certain percentage of cells of both M. formicicum and M. wolfeii were able to tolerate the length and extent of freeze/thaw cycles and could resume metabolism at warmer temperatures in fresh media.
These experiments also included long-term survival, with tubes exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, then stored at −80 °C for over three years (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). In Experiment 2, for Transfer Set 3, after transfer to fresh media and 14 days’ incubation at their respective growth temperatures, four out of five replicates of M. wolfeii demonstrated high methane production (~30% headspace). This is surprising given the extent of freeze/thaw cycling and the classification of the organism as a thermophile. Replicates of M. formicicum subjected to the same conditions failed to produce appreciable methane (>1%) after 28 days’ incubation at 37 °C. In Experiment 3, one replicate of M. wolfeii produced 0.70% methane, but all the remaining replicates, as well as the five replicates for M. formicicum, failed to produce any methane after incubation at the organisms’ optimal growth temperatures for 28 days. Methane production for cultures of M. wolfeii in Experiment 4 was more varied with one replicate measuring 12.8% methane, another replicate measuring 31.0% methane, and three replicates measuring 0% methane after 14 days’ incubation at 55 °C. Cultures of M. formicicum in Expt. 4 failed to produce any methane following incubation for 28 days. There are a few possible explanations for this: 1. There were no surviving cells within those cultures (or an insufficient number of cells within cultures before freezing); 2. The rate of freezing was lethal to the microorganisms; or 3. The cells are subject to a significant lag phase and methane production may be delayed. In a study using M. barkeri, Gunnigle et al. [91] noticed that growth was much slower at 15 °C compared to 37 °C, and that H2/CO2 as substrates produced the lowest optical density and methane measurements, compared to methanol as a substrate. However, the strain of M. barkeri used was previously adapted for use of methanol as a substrate and that may account for the poor performance of the organism under H2/CO2 conditions [91]. Additionally, a study that isolated methanogens from permafrost did not see appreciable methane accumulation until 6–12 months of incubation had elapsed, which suggests that longer incubation times could potentially result in resumed metabolism [11]. However, these cultures were enriched from ancient (2.6–5.3 Mya) permafrost and the authors suggest that this long lag phase was likely required to repair damage within cells accumulated over geological time periods, as well as allow time for metabolic adjustment to new environmental conditions [11]. Interestingly, two of the three methanogen species isolated were mesophilic species within the genus Methanobacterium. These two species also only grew via hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis (utilizing H2 as an energy source and CO2 as a carbon source). The two species used in the experiments described here are also solely hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Certain permafrost environments are dominated by hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis [7,18,19,51,52,53,92], although methane produced through the acetoclastic pathway is responsible for up to two-thirds of global methane production [93]. However, Wei et al. [50] interpret a shift in dominant community members from the order Methanomicrobiales to the order Methanosarcinales during permafrost thaw as a shift from hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis to acetoclastic methanogenesis, which could possibly be attributed to renewed availability of acetate.
To our knowledge, the only other freeze/thaw study using pure cultures of methanogens was conducted by Morozova et al. [48] and focused on survival under simulated martian thermal conditions. This study compared the survival of three psychrophilic methanogens isolated from permafrost against three reference species: M. barkeri (a mesophile), M. frigidium (isolated from Ace Lake, Antarctica) and Methanobacterium spec. MC-20 (isolated from non-permafrost sediments). After exposure to diurnal freeze/thaw cycles between −75 °C and 20 °C for 22 days, the three permafrost strains had the highest survival (60.6–90.4%, cell counts), whereas the survival rate for the reference organisms was exceptionally low (5.8% survival for M. frigidum, 1.1% survival for Methanobacterium spec. MC-20, 0.3% survival for M. barkeri). Additionally, methane production following exposure was significantly decreased for the three reference strains, whereas the permafrost strains had similar methane production before and after exposure [48]. However, methane production following exposure to the freeze/thaw cycles was only monitored for 300 h, which, as evidenced by significant lag times in the experiments described here, as well as experiments using environmental isolates [11], may not be sufficient time for non-psychrophilic organisms, specifically, to resume metabolism following exposure to freeze/thaw cycles.
Sand was utilized in Experiments 2 and 3 to mimic a near-subsurface environment, as may be applicable on Mars. In certain environments, sand also makes up a significant fraction of the permafrost, compared to silt or clay [13]. Additionally, Yang et al. [94] discovered that increased methane emissions correlated with sand content along a tract of thawing permafrost in the Tibetan Plateau. The authors hypothesize that increased sand content fueled higher methane emissions due to three factors: 1. Increased methane diffusion as has been seen in coarser soils; 2. Indirectly affecting methane fluxes through decreased adsorption of H+, thereby increasing the pH of the acidic environment; and 3. Indirectly increasing methane emissions by increased water-filled pore space within the soil [94]. Analysis of a permafrost core from the Siberian Arctic discovered lower methane concentrations within sediments containing higher concentrations of sand, citing the greater permeability of coarser-grained soils [14]. Thus, the use of sand within certain experiments has relevance to a possible subsurface environment on Mars, while also reflecting thawing permafrost environments on Earth.
Unlike Earth, Mars is considered to be a planet completely covered in permafrost [95,96]. However, Kreslavsky et al. [97] have stated that an active layer has not been present on Mars in the last 5 My, and thus, that freeze/thaw cycles similar to those on Earth cannot be responsible for the geomorphological features seen on the planet, such as polygonal ground. Additionally, Kreslavsky et al. [97] predict the absence of an active layer in the next 10 My based on martian obliquity calculations. In spite of these predictions, relatively recent findings from the Mars Orbital Camera (MOC) strongly suggest ground ice thaw at low martian latitudes, potentially analogous to the Antarctic polar desert and the low-latitude permafrost zone [98]. Additional analyses of martian surface features using data from MOC, HiRISE, and additional imaging systems also contend that certain landforms on the planet are reminiscent of freeze/thaw geomorphologies seen on Earth [4,5,6]. Baker et al. [98] also suggest that Mars was volcanically active as little as two million years ago, which indicates, at least, local warming and could result in the establishment of habitable environments within thawed permafrost. Ulrich et al. [99] also note periglacial landforms on Mars and suggest that “permafrost is the most promising analog for a potential life habitat on Mars.” Lastly, in reference to habitable environments for methanogens on Mars, Page [100] notes that thawing permafrost could result in the loss of volatiles from the soil and that this could potentially explain the detection of methane plumes over the Cerberus plains on Mars, which feature polygonal ground.
The reasons for the increased survival of M. wolfeii cells under extreme cold temperatures, as compared to the other methanogen tested here, remain unknown. Enhanced survival may be attributable to the presence of DEAD-box RNA helicases, which are believed to function as cold stress proteins within other methanogenic species including the psychrotolerant M. burtonii [101], the psychrophile M. psychrophilus [102], and the hyperthermophile Methanococcus jannaschii [103]. Shimada et al. [104] suggest that DEAD-box RNA helicases allow hyperthermophilic archaea the ability to adapt to lower temperatures. This is evidenced by the presence of these genes within Thermococcus kodakaraensis, which typically grows at lower temperatures (optimum growth temperature range for genus Thermococcus: 75–95 °C) than the hyperthermophiles within the closely-related genus Pyrococcus (optimum growth temperature range: 95–103 °C), which lack any orthologs [104,105]. However, extensive additional research would be required to confirm both the presence and expression of these proteins in M. wolfeii. Ding et al. [106] have also demonstrated the up-regulation of a protein disulfide isomerase within Methanothermobacter thermoautotrophicus ∆H during growth at temperatures below optimal (50 °C, optimal: 65 °C) and after cold shock at 4 °C. Ultimately, additional experiments are required to assess the true nature of cold-tolerance in M. wolfeii.

5. Conclusions

The experiments described here subjected a mesophilic and a thermophilic methanogen to long-term exposure (~4 year) to extreme temperature changes varying in duration. The data demonstrate that extreme temperature change (between −80 °C and 37/55 °C) over time is not necessarily lethal to non-psychrophilic methanogens, with resumed metabolism (methane production) possible once warmer temperatures are achieved. These results complement environmental studies, which show that methanogens remain significant community members within both current and ancient permafrost samples, and that methanogenic permafrost communities also feature active, non-psychrophilic species. Should life have arisen on Mars, permafrost may constitute a potentially habitable environment. Further insight into survival and growth in response to extreme temperature changes could be achieved through additional growth proxies such as direct cell counts or transcriptomics analyzing the expression of the mcrA gene, as has been performed in certain environmental studies.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/6/2/34/s1.

Author Contributions

The experiments were conceived by R.L.M. and T.A.K. S.K.L. prepared the Original sets for Experiments 2, 3, and 4, and performed the first 11, 9, and 6 methane measurements, respectively, under the guidance of R.L.M. and T.A.K. All transfer sets were prepared by R.L.M. and subsequent methane readings for both Original and Transfer sets were performed by R.L.M. The manuscript was written by R.L.M. with input and suggestions from T.A.K.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NASA Astrobiology: Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology Program, #NNX12AD90G.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wagner, D. Microbial communities and processes in arctic permafrost environments. In Microbiology of Extreme Soils; Dion, P., Nautiyal, C.S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 133–154. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wagner, D.; Spieck, E.; Bock, E.; Pfeiffer, E.-M. Microbial life in terrestrial permafrost: Methanogenesis and nitrification in gelisols as potentials for exobiological process. In Astrobiology: The Quest for the Conditions of Life; Horneck, G., Baumstark-Khan, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2002; pp. 143–159. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kieffer, H.H.; Martin, T.Z.; Peterfreund, A.R.; Jakosky, B.M.; Miner, E.D.; Palluconi, F.D. Thermal and albedo mapping of Mars during the Viking primary mission. J. Geophys. Res. 1977, 82, 4249–4291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Soare, R.J.; Osinski, G.R.; Roehm, C.L. Thermokarst lakes and ponds on Mars in the very recent (late Amazonian) past. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2008, 272, 382–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gallagher, C.; Balme, M.R.; Conway, S.J.; Grindrod, P.M. Sorted clastic stripes, lobes and associated gullies in high-latitude craters on Mars: Landforms indicative of very recent, polycyclic ground-ice thaw and liquid flows. Icarus 2011, 211, 458–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Johnsson, A.; Reiss, D.; Hauber, E.; Zanetti, M.; Hiesinger, H.; Johansson, L.; Olvmo, M. Periglacial mass-wasting landforms on Mars suggestive of transient liquid water in the recent past: Insights from solifluction lobes on Svalbard. Icarus 2012, 218, 489–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Karaevskaya, E.S.; Demchenko, L.S.; Demidov, N.E.; Rivkina, E.M.; Bulat, S.A.; Gilichinsky, D.A. Archaeal diversity in permafrost deposits of Bunger Hills Oasis and King George Island (Antarctica) according to the 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Microbiology 2014, 83, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kobabe, S.; Wagner, D.; Pfeiffer, E.-M. Characterisation of microbial community composition of a Siberian tundra soil by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2004, 50, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Koch, K.; Knoblauch, C.; Wagner, D. Methanogenic community composition and anaerobic carbon turnover in submarine permafrost sediments of the Siberian Laptev Sea. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 11, 657–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Liebner, S.; Ganzert, L.; Kiss, A.; Yang, S.; Wagner, D.; Svenning, M.M. Shifts in methanogenic community composition and methane fluxes along the degradation of discontinuous permafrost. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Rivkina, E.; Shcherbakova, V.; Laurinavichius, K.; Petrovskaya, L.; Krivushin, K.; Kraev, G.; Pecheritsina, S.; Gilichinsky, D. Biogeochemistry of methane and methanogenic archaea in permafrost. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2007, 61, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Shcherbakova, V.; Yoshimura, Y.; Ryzhmanova, Y.; Taguchi, Y.; Segawa, T.; Oshurkova, V.; Rivkina, E. Archaeal communities of Arctic methane-containing permafrost. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wagner, D.; Lipski, A.; Embacher, A.; Gattinger, A. Methane fluxes in permafrost habitats of the Lena Delta: Effects of microbial community structure and organic matter quality. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 7, 1582–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Bischoff, J.; Mangelsdorf, K.; Gattinger, A.; Schloter, M.; Kurchatova, A.N.; Herzschuh, U.; Wagner, D. Response of methanogenic archaea to Late Pleistocene and Holocene climate changes in the Siberian Arctic. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2013, 27, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Coolen, M.J.L.; Orsi, W.D. The transcriptional response of microbial communities in thawing Alaskan permafrost soils. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mackelprang, R.; Saleska, S.R.; Jacobsen, C.S.; Jansson, J.K.; Taş, N. Permafrost Meta-Omics and Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2016, 44, 439–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mackelprang, R.; Waldrop, M.P.; DeAngelis, K.M.; David, M.M.; Chavarria, K.L.; Blazewicz, S.J.; Rubin, E.M.; Jansson, J.K. Metagenomic analysis of a permafrost microbial community reveals a rapid response to thaw. Nature 2011, 480, 368–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Tveit, A.T.; Urich, T.; Frenzel, P.; Svenning, M.M. Metabolic and trophic interactions modulate methane production by Arctic peat microbiota in response to warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E2507–E2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wagner, D.; Gattinger, A.; Embacher, A.; Pfeiffer, E.-M.; Schloter, M.; Lipski, A. Methanogenic activity and biomass in Holocene permafrost deposits of the Lena Delta, Siberian Arctic and its implication for the global methane budget. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 1089–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fonti, S.; Marzo, G.A. Mapping the methane on Mars. Astron. Astrophys. 2010, 512, A51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Formisano, V.; Atreya, S.; Encrenaz, T.; Ignatiev, N.; Giuranna, M. Detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars. Science 2004, 306, 1758–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Geminale, A.; Formisano, V.; Sindoni, G. Mapping methane in Martian atmosphere with PFS-MEX data. Planet. Space Sci. 2011, 59, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Geminale, A.; Formisano, V.; Giuranna, M. Methane in Martian atmosphere: Average spatial, diurnal, and seasonal behaviour. Planet. Space Sci. 2008, 56, 1194–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Krasnopolsky, V.A.; Maillard, J.P.; Owen, T.C. Detection of methane in the martian atmosphere: Evidence for life? Icarus 2004, 172, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Krasnopolsky, V.A.; Bjoraker, G.L.; Mumma, M.J.; Jennings, D.E. High-resolution spectroscopy of Mars at 3.7 and 8 μm: A sensitive search for H2O2, H2CO, HCl, and CH4, and detection of HDO. J. Geophys. Res. 1997, 102, 6525–6534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maguire, W.C. Martian isotopic ratios and upper limits for possible minor constituents as derived from Mariner 9 infrared spectrometer data. Icarus 1977, 32, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mumma, M.J.; Villanueva, G.L.; Novak, R.E.; Hewagama, T.; Bonev, B.P.; DiSanti, M.A.; Mandell, A.M.; Smith, M.D. Strong release of methane on Mars in northern summer 2003. Science 2009, 323, 1041–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Webster, C.R.; Mahaffy, P.R.; Atreya, S.K.; Flesch, G.J.; Mischna, M.A.; Meslin, P.-Y.; Farley, K.A.; Conrad, P.G.; Christensen, L.E.; Pavlov, A.A.; et al. Mars methane detection and variability at Gale crater. Science 2015, 347, 415–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lefevre, F.; Forget, F. Observed variations of methane on Mars unexplained by known atmospheric chemistry and physics. Nature 2009, 460, 720–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kral, T.A.; Altheide, T.S.; Lueders, A.E.; Schuerger, A.C. Low pressure and desiccation effects on methanogens: Implications for life on Mars. Planet. Space Sci. 2011, 59, 264–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kral, T.A.; Altheide, T.S. Methanogen survival following exposure to desiccation, low pressure and martian regolith analogs. Planet. Space Sci. 2013, 89, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mickol, R.L.; Kral, T.A. Low Pressure Tolerance by Methanogens in an Aqueous Environment: Implications for Subsurface Life on Mars. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2017, 47, 511–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mickol, R.L.; Kral, T.A. Low pressure microenvironments: Methane production at 50 mbar and 100 mbar by methanogens. Planet. Space Sci. 2018, 153, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schirmack, J.; Böhm, M.; Brauer, C.; Löhmannsröben, H.-G.; de Vera, J.-P.; Möhlmann, D.; Wagner, D. Laser spectroscopic real time measurements of methanogenic activity under simulated Martian subsurface analog conditions. Planet. Space Sci. 2014, 98, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Kral, T.A.; Goodhart, T.H.; Harpool, J.D.; Hearnsberger, C.E.; McCracken, G.L.; McSpadden, S.W. Sensitivity and adaptability of methanogens to perchlorates: Implications for life on Mars. Planet. Space Sci. 2016, 120, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kral, T.A.; Birch, W.; Lavender, L.E.; Virden, B.T. Potential use of highly insoluble carbonates as carbon sources by methanogens in the subsurface of Mars. Planet. Space Sci. 2014, 101, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shcherbakova, V.; Oshurkova, V.; Yoshimura, Y. The Effects of Perchlorates on the Permafrost Methanogens: Implication for Autotrophic Life on Mars. Microorganisms 2015, 3, 518–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Chastain, B.K.; Kral, T.A.; Chevrier, V.F.; Altheide, T.S. Growth and Biomediated Mineral Alterations by Methanogens under Geochemical Conditions Similar to the Martian Subsurface. In Proceedings of the Astrobiology Science Conference 2010: Evolution and Life: Surviving Catastrophes and Extremes on Earth and Beyond, League City, TX, USA, 20–26 April 2010. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chastain, B.K.; Kral, T.A. Zero-valent iron on Mars: An alternative energy source for methanogens. Icarus 2010, 208, 198–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chastain, B.K.; Kral, T.A. Approaching Mars-like geochemical conditions in the laboratory: Omission of artificial buffers and reductants in a study of biogenic methane production on a smectite clay. Astrobiology 2010, 10, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Craig, P.I.; Mickol, R.L.; Archer, P.D.; Kral, T.A. Nontronite and Montmorillonite as Nutrient Sources for Life on Mars. In Proceedings of the 48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 20–24 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
  42. Craig, P.I.; Mickol, R.L.; Archer, P.D.; Kral, T.A. Clay Minerals as Nutrient Sources for Life on Mars. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Early Mars: Geologic, Hydrologic, and Climatic Evolution and the Implications for Life, Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 2–6 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kral, T.A.; Bekkum, C.R.; McKay, C.P. Growth of methanogens on a Mars soil simulant. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2004, 34, 615–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mickol, R.L.; Craig, P.I.; Kral, T.A. Nontronite and Montmorillonite as Nutrient Sources for Life on Mars. In Proceedings of the Biosignature Preservation and Detection in Mars Analog Environments, Lake Tahoe, NV, USA, 16–18 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Schirmack, J.; Alawi, M.; Wagner, D. Influence of Martian regolith analogs on the activity and growth of methanogenic archaea, with special regard to long-term desiccation. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sinha, N.; Kral, T.A. Stable carbon isotope fractionation by methanogens growing on different Mars regolith analogs. Planet. Space Sci. 2015, 112, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mickol, R.L.; Takagi, Y.A.K.; Kral, T.A. Survival of Non-psychrophilic Methanogens Exposed to Martian Diurnal and 48-h Temperature Cycles. Planet. Space Sci. 2018, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Morozova, D.; Möhlmann, D.; Wagner, D. Survival of Methanogenic Archaea from Siberian Permafrost under Simulated Martian Thermal Conditions. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2007, 37, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Walz, J.; Knoblauch, C.; Böhme, L.; Pfeiffer, E.-M. Regulation of soil organic matter decomposition in permafrost-affected Siberian tundra soils—Impact of oxygen availability, freezing and thawing, temperature, and labile organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wei, S.; Cui, H.; Zhu, Y.; Lu, Z.; Pang, S.; Zhang, S.; Dong, H.; Su, X. Shifts of methanogenic communities in response to permafrost thaw results in rising methane emissions and soil property changes. Extremophiles 2018, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Blake, L.I.; Tveit, A.; Øvreås, L.; Head, I.M.; Gray, N.D. Response of methanogens in Arctic sediments to temperature and methanogenic substrate availability. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Mondav, R.; Woodcroft, B.J.; Kim, E.-H.; McCalley, C.K.; Hodgkins, S.B.; Crill, P.M.; Chanton, J.; Hurst, G.B.; VerBerkmoes, N.C.; Saleska, S.R.; et al. Discovery of a novel methanogen prevalent in thawing permafrost. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Ganzert, L.; Jurgens, G.; Münster, U.; Wagner, D. Methanogenic communities in permafrost-affected soils of the Laptev Sea coast, Siberian Arctic, characterized by 16S rRNA gene fingerprints. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2007, 59, 476–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Hultman, J.; Waldrop, M.P.; Mackelprang, R.; David, M.M.; McFarland, J.; Blazewicz, S.J.; Harden, J.; Turetsky, M.R.; McGuire, A.D.; Shah, M.B.; et al. Multi-omics of permafrost, active layer and thermokarst bog soil microbiomes. Nature 2015, 521, 208–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ren, J.; Song, C.; Hou, A.; Song, Y.; Zhu, X.; Cagle, G.A. Shifts in soil bacterial and archaeal communities during freeze-thaw cycles in a seasonal frozen marsh. Northeast China Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 782–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Mackelprang, R.; Burkert, A.; Haw, M.; Mahendrarajah, T.; Conaway, C.H.; Douglas, T.A.; Waldrop, M.P. Microbial survival strategies in ancient permafrost: Insights from metagenomics. ISME J. 2017, 11, 2305–2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Henry, H.A.L. Soil freeze–thaw cycle experiments: Trends, methodological weaknesses and suggested improvements. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 977–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, T.; Armstrong, R.L.; Smith, J. Investigation of the near-surface soil freeze-thaw cycle in the contiguous United States: Algorithm development and validation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2003, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Larsen, K.S.; Jonasson, S.; Michelsen, A. Repeated freeze–thaw cycles and their effects on biological processes in two arctic ecosystem types. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2002, 21, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Freppaz, M.; Williams, B.L.; Edwards, A.C.; Scalenghe, R.; Zanini, E. Simulating soil freeze/thaw cycles typical of winter alpine conditions: Implications for N and P availability. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2007, 35, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kumar, N.; Grogan, P.; Chu, H.; Christiansen, C.T.; Walker, V.K. The effect of freeze-thaw conditions on arctic soil bacterial communities. Biology 2013, 2, 356–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Sawicka, J.E.; Robador, A.; Hubert, C.; Jørgensen, B.B.; Brüchert, V. Effects of freeze–thaw cycles on anaerobic microbial processes in an Arctic intertidal mud flat. ISME J. 2010, 4, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Koponen, H.T.; Jaakkola, T.; Keinänen-Toivola, M.M.; Kaipainen, S.; Tuomainen, J.; Servomaa, K.; Martikainen, P.J. Microbial communities, biomass, and activities in soils as affected by freeze thaw cycles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 1861–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Connolly, B.M.; Orrock, J.L. Climatic variation and seed persistence: Freeze–thaw cycles lower survival via the joint action of abiotic stress and fungal pathogens. Oecologia 2015, 179, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Feng, X.; Nielsen, L.L.; Simpson, M.J. Responses of soil organic matter and microorganisms to freeze–thaw cycles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 2027–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Joly, M.; Amato, P.; Sancelme, M.; Vinatier, V.; Abrantes, M.; Deguillaume, L.; Delort, A.-M. Survival of microbial isolates from clouds toward simulated atmospheric stress factors. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 117, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lu, Z.; Du, R.; Du, P.; Qin, S.; Liang, Z.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y. Influences of Land Use/Cover Types on Nitrous Oxide Emissions during Freeze-Thaw Periods from Waterlogged Soils in Inner Mongolia. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0139316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wipf, S.; Sommerkorn, M.; Stutter, M.I.; Wubs, E.R.J.; Van Der Wal, R. Snow cover, freeze-thaw, and the retention of nutrients in an oceanic mountain ecosystem. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yergeau, E.; Kowalchuk, G.A. Responses of Antarctic soil microbial communities and associated functions to temperature and freeze–thaw cycle frequency. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 10, 2223–2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Boone, D.R.; Johnson, R.L.; Liu, Y. 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. 1989, 55, 1735–1741. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  71. Xun, L.; Boone, D.R.; Mah, R.A. Control of the life cycle of Methanosarcina mazei S-6 by manipulation of growth conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1988, 54, 2064–2068. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  72. Kendrick, M.G.; Kral, T.A. Survival of methanogens during desiccation: Implications for life on Mars. Astrobiology 2006, 6, 546–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Battumur, U.; Yoon, Y.-M.; Kim, C.-H. Isolation and Characterization of a new Methanobacterium formicicum KOR-1 from an Anaerobic Digester Using Pig Slurry. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 586–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Winter, J.; Lerp, C.; Zabel, H.-P.; Wildenauer, F.X.; König, H.; Schindler, F. Methanobacterium wolfei, sp. nov., a new tungsten-requiring, thermophilic, autotrophic methanogen. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 1984, 5, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Franzmann, P.D.; Springer, N.; Ludwig, W.; De Macario, E.C.; Rohde, M. A methanogenic archaeon from Ace Lake, Antarctica: Methanococcoides burtonii sp. nov. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 1992, 15, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schirmack, J.; Mangelsdorf, K.; Ganzert, L.; Sand, W.; Hillebrand-Voiculescu, A.; Wagner, D. Methanobacterium movilense sp. nov., a hydrogenotrophic, secondary-alcohol-utilizing methanogen from the anoxic sediment of a subsurface lake. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Simankova, M.V.; Kotsyurbenko, O.R.; Lueders, T.; Nozhevnikova, A.N.; Wagner, B.; Conrad, R.; Friedrich, M.W. Isolation and characterization of new strains of methanogens from cold terrestrial habitats. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 26, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Simankova, M.V.; Parshina, S.N.; Tourova, T.P.; Kolganova, T.V.; Zehnder, A.J.B.; Nozhevnikova, A.N. Methanosarcina lacustris sp. nov., a new psychrotolerant methanogenic archaeon from anoxic lake sediments. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 24, 362–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Wagner, D.; Schirmack, J.; Ganzert, L.; Morozova, D.; Mangelsdorf, K. Methanosarcina soligelidi sp. nov., a desiccation- and freeze-thaw-resistant methanogenic archaeon from a Siberian permafrost-affected soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2013, 63, 2986–2991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Chong, S.C.; Liu, Y.; Cummins, M.; Valentine, D.L.; Boone, D.R. Methanogenium marinum sp. nov., a H2-using methanogen from Skan Bay, Alaska, and kinetics of H2 utilization. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2002, 81, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Kotelnikova, S.; Macario, A.J.L.; Pedersen, K. Methanobacterium subterraneum sp. nov., a new alkaliphilic, eurythermic and halotolerant methanogen isolated from deep granitic groundwater. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1998, 48, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Krivushin, K.V.; Shcherbakova, V.A.; Petrovskaya, L.E.; Rivkina, E.M. Methanobacterium veterum sp. nov.; from ancient Siberian permafrost. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2010, 60, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Shcherbakova, V.; Rivkina, E.; Pecheritsyna, S.; Laurinavichius, K.; Suzina, N.; Gilichinsky, D. Methanobacterium arcticum sp. nov., a methanogenic archaeon from Holocene Arctic permafrost. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2011, 61, 144–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Shimizu, S.; Ueno, A.; Naganuma, T.; Kaneko, K. Methanosarcina subterranea sp. nov., a methanogenic archaeon isolated from a deep subsurface diatomaceous shale formation. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 1167–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Shlimon, A.G.; Friedrich, M.W.; Niemann, H.; Ramsing, N.B.; Finster, K. Methanobacterium aarhusense sp. nov., a novel methanogen isolated from a marine sediment (Aarhus Bay, Denmark). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2004, 54, 759–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Von Klein, D.; Arab, H.; Völker, H.; Thomm, M. Methanosarcina baltica, sp. nov., a novel methanogen isolated from the Gotland Deep of the Baltic Sea. Extremophiles 2002, 6, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Franzmann, P.D.; Liu, Y.; Balkwill, D.L.; Aldrich, H.C.; De Macario, E.C.; Boone, D.R. Methanogenium frigidum sp. nov., a psychrophilic, H2-using methanogen from Ace Lake, Antarctica. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1997, 47, 1068–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Zhang, G.; Jiang, N.; Liu, X.; Dong, X. Methanogenesis from methanol at low temperatures by a novel psychrophilic methanogen, “Methanolobus psychrophilus” sp. nov.; prevalent in Zoige wetland of the Tibetan plateau. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 6114–6120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Singh, N.; Kendall, M.M.; Liu, Y.; Boone, D.R. Isolation and characterization of methylotrophic methanogens from anoxic marine sediments in Skan Bay, Alaska: Description of Methanococcoides alaskense sp. nov. and emended description of Methanosarcina baltica. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 2531–2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Ratkowsky, D.A.; Lowry, R.K.; McMeekin, T.A.; Stokes, A.N.; Chandler, R.E. Model for bacterial culture growth rate throughout the entire biokinetic temperature range. J. Bacteriol. 1983, 154, 1222–1226. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  91. Gunnigle, E.; McCay, P.; Fuszard, M.; Botting, C.H.; Abram, F.; O’Flaherty, V. A functional approach to uncover the low-temperature adaptation strategies of the archaeon Methanosarcina barkeri. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 4210–4219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Yang, S.; Liebner, S.; Winkel, M.; Alawi, M.; Horn, F.; Dörfer, C.; Ollivier, J.; He, J.; Jin, H.; Kühn, P.; et al. In-depth analysis of core methanogenic communities from high elevation permafrost-affected wetlands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 111, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ferry, J.G. Methane from acetate. J. Bacteriol. 1992, 174, 5489–5495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Yang, G.; Peng, Y.; Olefeldt, D.; Chen, Y.; Wang, G.; Li, F.; Zhang, D.; Wang, J.; Yu, J.; Liu, L.; et al. Changes in Methane Flux along a Permafrost Thaw Sequence on the Tibetan Plateau. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 1244–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Clifford, S.M. A model for the hydrologic and climatic behavior of water on Mars. J. Geophys. Res. 1993, 98, 10973–11016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mellon, M.T.; Phillips, R.J. Recent gullies on Mars and the source of liquid water. J. Geophys. Res. 2001, 106, 23165–23179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kreslavsky, M.A.; Head, J.W.; Marchant, D.R. Periods of active permafrost layer formation during the geological history of Mars: Implications for circum-polar and mid-latitude surface processes. Planet. Space Sci. 2008, 56, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Baker, V.R. Picturing a recently active Mars. Nature 2005, 434, 280–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Ulrich, M.; Wagner, D.; Hauber, E.; de Vera, J.-P.; Schirrmeister, L. Habitable periglacial landscapes in martian mid-latitudes. Icarus 2012, 219, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Page, D.P. Recent low-latitude freeze–thaw on Mars. Icarus 2007, 189, 83–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lim, J.; Thomas, T.; Cavicchioli, R. Low temperature regulated DEAD-box RNA helicase from the Antarctic archaeon, Methanococcoides burtonii. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 297, 553–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Chen, Z.; Yu, H.; Li, L.; Hu, S.; Dong, X. The genome and transcriptome of a newly described psychrophilic archaeon, Methanolobus psychrophilus R15, reveal its cold adaptive characteristics. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2012, 4, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  103. Boonyaratanakornkit, B.B.; Simpson, A.J.; Whitehead, T.A.; Fraser, C.M.; El-Sayed, N.M.A.; Clark, D.S. Transcriptional profiling of the hyperthermophilic methanarchaeon Methanococcus jannaschii in response to lethal heat and non-lethal cold shock. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 7, 789–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Shimada, Y.; Fukuda, W.; Akada, Y.; Ishida, M.; Nakayama, J.; Imanaka, T.; Fujiwara, S. Property of cold inducible DEAD-box RNA helicase in hyperthermophilic archaea. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2009, 389, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Fukui, T.; Atomi, H.; Kanai, T.; Matsumi, R.; Fujiwara, S.; Imanaka, T. Complete genome sequence of the hyperthermophilic archaeon Thermococcus kodakaraensis KOD1 and comparison with Pyrococcus genomes. Genome Res. 2005, 15, 352–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Ding, X.; Lv, Z.-M.; Zhao, Y.; Min, H.; Yang, W.-J. MTH1745, a protein disulfide isomerase-like protein from thermophilic archaea, Methanothermobacter thermoautotrophicum involving in stress response. Cell Stress Chaperones 2008, 13, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Methane production (% headspace) over time for two species of methanogens (Methanobacterium formicicum, Methanothermobacter wolfeii) at 22 °C. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation (n = 4).
Figure 1. Methane production (% headspace) over time for two species of methanogens (Methanobacterium formicicum, Methanothermobacter wolfeii) at 22 °C. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation (n = 4).
Microorganisms 06 00034 g001
Figure 2. Methane production by Methanobacterium formicicum following an initial incubation period for each of three sets. Test tubes for the Original Set and Transfer Sets 1 and 2 contain 5 g sand and 10 mL MSF medium. Transfer Set 3 tubes contain 10 mL MSF medium only. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from one tube in the Original Set (n = 4) following 105 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 2 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from three separate test tubes from Transfer Set 1 following 74 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 3 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated on Day 1494 from the corresponding tube in Transfer Set 2. Specific freeze/thaw cycles (time, temperature) are given in Table 2. Specific inoculation schemes between sets are given in the supplementary material. The asterisk indicates that no methane was detected. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Figure 2. Methane production by Methanobacterium formicicum following an initial incubation period for each of three sets. Test tubes for the Original Set and Transfer Sets 1 and 2 contain 5 g sand and 10 mL MSF medium. Transfer Set 3 tubes contain 10 mL MSF medium only. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from one tube in the Original Set (n = 4) following 105 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 2 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from three separate test tubes from Transfer Set 1 following 74 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 3 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated on Day 1494 from the corresponding tube in Transfer Set 2. Specific freeze/thaw cycles (time, temperature) are given in Table 2. Specific inoculation schemes between sets are given in the supplementary material. The asterisk indicates that no methane was detected. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Microorganisms 06 00034 g002
Figure 3. Methane production by Methanothermobacter wolfeii following an initial incubation period for each of three sets. Test tubes for the Original Set and for Transfer Sets 1 and 2 contain 5 g sand and 10 mL MM medium. Transfer Set 3 tubes contain 10 mL MM medium only. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from one tube in the Original Set (n = 4) following 105 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 2 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from the corresponding tube within Transfer Set 1 following 74 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 3 tubes (n = 5 *) were inoculated from the corresponding tube within Transfer Set 2 on Day 1494. Specific freeze/thaw cycles (time, temperature) are given in Table 2. Specific inoculation schemes between sets are given in the supplementary material. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation. * One replicate did not produce any methane and is not included in the data shown here.
Figure 3. Methane production by Methanothermobacter wolfeii following an initial incubation period for each of three sets. Test tubes for the Original Set and for Transfer Sets 1 and 2 contain 5 g sand and 10 mL MM medium. Transfer Set 3 tubes contain 10 mL MM medium only. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from one tube in the Original Set (n = 4) following 105 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 2 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from the corresponding tube within Transfer Set 1 following 74 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 3 tubes (n = 5 *) were inoculated from the corresponding tube within Transfer Set 2 on Day 1494. Specific freeze/thaw cycles (time, temperature) are given in Table 2. Specific inoculation schemes between sets are given in the supplementary material. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation. * One replicate did not produce any methane and is not included in the data shown here.
Microorganisms 06 00034 g003
Figure 4. Methane production by Methanobacterium formicicum following an initial incubation period for each of three sets. Test tubes for the Original Set and for Transfer Sets 1 and 2 contain 10 g sand and 5 mL MSF medium. Transfer Set 3 tubes contain 10 mL MSF medium only. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from one tube in the Original Set (n = 4) following 91 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 2 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from three separate test tubes from Transfer Set 1 following 99 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 3 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from the corresponding tube in Transfer Set 2 after 1474 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Specific freeze/thaw cycles (time, temperature) are given in Table 3. Specific inoculation schemes between sets are given in the supplementary material. The asterisk indicates that no methane was detected. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Figure 4. Methane production by Methanobacterium formicicum following an initial incubation period for each of three sets. Test tubes for the Original Set and for Transfer Sets 1 and 2 contain 10 g sand and 5 mL MSF medium. Transfer Set 3 tubes contain 10 mL MSF medium only. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from one tube in the Original Set (n = 4) following 91 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 2 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from three separate test tubes from Transfer Set 1 following 99 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 3 tubes (n = 4) were inoculated from the corresponding tube in Transfer Set 2 after 1474 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Specific freeze/thaw cycles (time, temperature) are given in Table 3. Specific inoculation schemes between sets are given in the supplementary material. The asterisk indicates that no methane was detected. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Microorganisms 06 00034 g004
Figure 5. Methane production by Methanothermobacter wolfeii following an initial incubation period for each of three sets. Test tubes for the Original Set and for Transfer Sets 1 and 2 contain 10 g sand and 5 mL MM medium. Transfer Set 3 tubes contain 10 mL MM medium only. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 3) were inoculated from two separate test tubes in the Original Set (n = 3) following 91 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 2 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from two separate test tubes from Transfer Set 1 following 99 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 3 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from the corresponding tube in Transfer Set 2 after 1474 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Specific freeze/thaw cycles (time, temperature) are given in Table 4. Specific inoculation schemes between sets are given in the supplementary material. The asterisk indicates that no methane was detected. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Figure 5. Methane production by Methanothermobacter wolfeii following an initial incubation period for each of three sets. Test tubes for the Original Set and for Transfer Sets 1 and 2 contain 10 g sand and 5 mL MM medium. Transfer Set 3 tubes contain 10 mL MM medium only. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 3) were inoculated from two separate test tubes in the Original Set (n = 3) following 91 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 2 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from two separate test tubes from Transfer Set 1 following 99 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Transfer Set 3 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from the corresponding tube in Transfer Set 2 after 1474 days of freeze/thaw cycles. Specific freeze/thaw cycles (time, temperature) are given in Table 4. Specific inoculation schemes between sets are given in the supplementary material. The asterisk indicates that no methane was detected. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Microorganisms 06 00034 g005
Figure 6. Methane production by Methanothermobacter wolfeii following an initial incubation period for each of two sets. Original Set test tubes contained 5 mL MM medium. Transfer Set 1 test tubes contained 10 mL MM medium. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 5 *) were inoculated from the corresponding replicate in the Original Set (n = 5) following 1284 days of freeze/thaw cycles (Table 5). Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation. * Two of five replicates within Transfer Set 1 failed to produce methane after 28 days’ incubation and are not included in the data shown here.
Figure 6. Methane production by Methanothermobacter wolfeii following an initial incubation period for each of two sets. Original Set test tubes contained 5 mL MM medium. Transfer Set 1 test tubes contained 10 mL MM medium. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 5 *) were inoculated from the corresponding replicate in the Original Set (n = 5) following 1284 days of freeze/thaw cycles (Table 5). Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation. * Two of five replicates within Transfer Set 1 failed to produce methane after 28 days’ incubation and are not included in the data shown here.
Microorganisms 06 00034 g006
Figure 7. Methane production by Methanobacterium formicicum following an initial incubation period for each of two sets. Original Set test tubes contained 5 mL MSF medium. Transfer Set 1 test tubes contained 10 mL MSF medium. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from the corresponding replicate in the Original Set (n = 5) following 1284 days of freeze/thaw cycles (Table 5). The asterisk indicates that no methane was detected. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Figure 7. Methane production by Methanobacterium formicicum following an initial incubation period for each of two sets. Original Set test tubes contained 5 mL MSF medium. Transfer Set 1 test tubes contained 10 mL MSF medium. Transfer Set 1 tubes (n = 5) were inoculated from the corresponding replicate in the Original Set (n = 5) following 1284 days of freeze/thaw cycles (Table 5). The asterisk indicates that no methane was detected. Error bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Microorganisms 06 00034 g007
Table 1. Examples of previous freeze/thaw studies.
Table 1. Examples of previous freeze/thaw studies.
Number of CyclesTemperatures During CyclesLength at Temp.Total Experiment LengthSampleReference
22−75 °C to 20 °C24 h22 daysPermafrost and non-permafrost methanogens in pure culture[48]
182 °C
−4 °C
9 h
15 h
18 daysAbisko, northern Swedish Lapland, vegetation and soil blocks[59]
1 or 4−9 °C and 4 °C12 h each1 day or 4 daysWestern Alps, the Pennines, alpine soil[60]
14−10 °C and 0 °C12 h each14 daysCanadian arctic soil[61]
34 °C, 2 °C, 0 °C, −2 °C, −5 °C24 h each20 daysArctic intertidal mud flat sediment[62]
2−20 °C and 10 °C3 weeks each12 weeksArctic intertidal mud flat sediment[62]
8−20 °C
10 °C
12 h
18 h
10 daysArctic intertidal mud flat sediment[62]
4−17 °C
4 °C
5 days
7 days
48 weeksFinnish agricultural soil (loamy sand, peat)[63]
3−25 °C
1 °C
15 h
9 h
3 daysWisconsin soil, seeds of Elymus canadensis[64]
10−15 °C
17 °C
1 day
6 days
70 daysCanadian grassland soil[65]
65 °C
−40 °C
12 min
48 min
6 hCloud water isolates[66]
4−15 °C,
−10 °C,
−5 °C, 5 °C, 10 °C
1 week each8 weeksChinese agricultural grassland soil[67]
3−5 °C
5 °C
5 days
2 days
21 daysGlas Maol (summit plateau), East Scotland, soil cores[68]
1−5 °C5 days5 daysGlas Maol soil cores[68]
1−5 °C19 days19 daysGlas Maol soil cores[68]
3, 12, 24, 36, or 48 a10 °C
−15 °C
15 h
9 h
12 weeksAntarctic soil cores[69]
14 °C
−18 °C
4 °C
30 days
7 days
30 days
67 daysLena River Delta, northeast Siberia soil cores[49]
a Number of cycles corresponds to frequency treatment during a 12-week period: 3 cycles = frequency of one month, 12 cycles = frequency of one week, 24 cycles = 2 cycles per week, 36 cycles = 3 cycles per week, 48 cycles = 4 cycles per week. Cycles were only conducted four out of seven days per week [69].
Table 2. Time intervals and temperatures for freeze/thaw cycling for Experiment 2.
Table 2. Time intervals and temperatures for freeze/thaw cycling for Experiment 2.
Original SetTransfer Set 1Transfer Set 2Transfer Set 3
Cumulative Days of Cycling aCumulative Years of CyclingTime at Temperature (Days)Temperature b (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature b (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature b (°C)
50.014537 or 55
140.038937 or 55
190.05254
260.07174
400.11014−15
470.12974
630.17316−15
700.19274
770.2117−15
960.263194
1030.282722Inoculated from Original Set on Day 105
1120.307 722
1270.348 1522
1380.378 11−15
1650.452 2722
1790.490 144Inoculated from Transfer Set 1 on Day 179
1960.537 1737 or 551737 or 55
2110.578 15−8015−80
2310.633 204204
2520.690 21222122
2670.732 15−8015−80
2970.814 304
3340.915 37−15
14874.074 1153−80
14944.093 722Inoculated from Transfer Set 2 on Day 1494
15084.132 1437 or 55
15224.170 1437 or 55
Total15084.170103 162 1315 28
Colors correspond to temperature of cycle: Incubation temperature (red [37 °C, M. formicicum; 55 °C, M. wolfeii]), room temperature (orange, 22 °C), 4 °C (yellow), −15 °C (blue), −80 °C (white). Original set tubes were re-pressurized with 2 bar H2 on Day 96 during cycling. a Cumulative Days of Cycling correspond to the number of days elapsed since the Original Set was first inoculated; b Instances where temperatures are identical for two adjacent cycles indicate that the cultures were removed from incubation, tested for methane production, and replaced at that temperature for an additional incubation period.
Table 3. Time intervals and temperatures for freeze/thaw cycling for Experiment 3 for Methanobacterium formicicum cultures.
Table 3. Time intervals and temperatures for freeze/thaw cycling for Experiment 3 for Methanobacterium formicicum cultures.
Original SetTransfer Set 1Transfer Set 2Transfer Set 3
Cumulative Days of Cycling aCumulative Years of CyclingTime at Temperature (Days)Temperature (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature b (°C)
180.049184
250.068737
410.11216–15
480.13274
550.1517–15
740.203194
810.222722
Inoculated from Original Set on Day 91
1460.400 5537
1600.438 14–15
1790.490 1922
1960.537 174Inoculated from Transfer Set 1 on Day 190
2070.567 1737
2140.586 18–15
2280.625 21–80
2460.674 3222
2840.778 5637
3160.866 32–15
14674.02 1151–80
14744.04 722Inoculated from Transfer Set 2 on Day 1474
14884.08 1437
15024.12 1437
15024.0881 155 1284 28
Colors correspond to temperature of cycle: Incubation temperature (red, 37 °C), room temperature (orange, 22 °C), 4 °C (yellow), −15 °C (blue), −80 °C (white). Original set tubes were re-pressurized with 2 bar H2 on Day 74 during cycling. a Cumulative Days of Cycling correspond to the number of days elapsed since the Original Set was first inoculated; b Instances where temperatures are identical for two adjacent cycles indicate that the cultures were removed from incubation, tested for methane production, and replaced at that temperature for an additional incubation period.
Table 4. Time intervals and temperatures for freeze/thaw cycling for Experiment 3 for Methanothermobacter wolfeii cultures.
Table 4. Time intervals and temperatures for freeze/thaw cycling for Experiment 3 for Methanothermobacter wolfeii cultures.
Original SetTransfer Set 1Transfer Set 2Transfer Set 3
Cumulative Days of Cycling aCumulative Years of CyclingTime at Temperature (Days)Temperature (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature b (°C)
180.049184
250.068755
410.11216–15
480.13274
550.1517–15
740.203194
810.222722
Inoculated from Original Set on Day 91
1460.400 5537
1600.438 1455
1790.490 194
1960.537 1755Inoculated from Transfer Set 1 on Day 190
2070.567 1755
2140.586 18−15
2280.625 21−80
2460.674 3222
2840.778 5655
3160.866 32−15
14674.02 1151−80
14744.04 722Inoculated from Transfer Set 2 on Day 1474
14884.08 1455
15024.12 1455
15024.1281 155 1284 28
Colors correspond to temperature of cycle: Incubation temperature (red, 55 °C), 37 °C (green), room temperature (orange, 22 °C), 4 °C (yellow), −15 °C (blue), −80 °C (white). Original set tubes were re-pressurized with 2 bar H2 on Day 74 during cycling. a Cumulative Days of Cycling correspond to the number of days elapsed since the Original Set was first inoculated; b Instances where temperatures are identical for two adjacent cycles indicate that the cultures were removed from incubation, tested for methane production, and replaced at that temperature for an additional incubation period.
Table 5. Time intervals and temperatures for freeze/thaw cycling for Experiment 4.
Table 5. Time intervals and temperatures for freeze/thaw cycling for Experiment 4.
Original SetTransfer Set 1
Cumulative Days of Cycling aCumulative Years of CyclingTime at Temperature (Days)Temperature (°C)Time at Temperature (Days)Temperature b (°C)
170.471737 or 55
380.10421−80
940.2585637 or 55
1260.34532−15
12773.501151−80
12843.52722Inoculated from Original Set on Day 1284
12983.561437 or 551437 or 55
13123.60 1437 or 55
Total13123.601298 28
Colors correspond to temperature of cycle: Incubation temperature (red, M. formicicum: 37 °C, or M. wolfeii: 55 °C), room temperature (orange, 22 °C), −15 °C (blue), −80 °C (white). a Cumulative Days of Cycling correspond to the number of days elapsed since the Original Set was first inoculated; b Instances where temperatures are identical for two adjacent cycles indicate that the cultures were removed from incubation, tested for methane production, and replaced at that temperature for an additional incubation period.
Table 6. Methanogenic archaea isolated from permanently cold environments.
Table 6. Methanogenic archaea isolated from permanently cold environments.
MethanogenGrowth Range (°C)Optimum Temperature (°C)Reference
Methanogenium frigidum
Strain Ace-2T
0 a–1715[87]
Methanolobus psychrophilus
Strain R15T
0–2518[88]
Methanosarcina baltica
Strain AK-4
Methanococcoides alaskens
Strain AK-5T
Strain AK-9

−2.3 b–28.4

−2.3 b–30.6
−10.7 b–30.1

21

23.6
26
[89]
Methanococcoides burtonii
Strain DSM6242T
−2.54 c–29.523.4[75]
Methanosarcina lacustris
Strain ZST
1–3525[78]
Methanosarcina baltica
Strain GS1-AT
4–2725[86]
Methanogenium marinum
Strain AK-1T
5–2525[80]
Methanosarcina soligelidi
Strain SMA-21T
0–5428[79]
Methanobacterium movilense
Strain MC-20T
0–4433[76]
Methanosarcina subterranea
Strain HC-2T
10–4035[84]
Methanobacterium subterraneum
Strain A8pT
3.6–4520–40[81]
Methanobacterium aarhusense
Strain H2-LRT
5–4845[85]
Methanosarcina lacustris
Strain MM
Strain MS
Methanocorpusculum sp. Strain MSP
Methanomethylovorans hollandica Strain ZB
Methanosarcina mazei Strain MT

1–32
1–32
5–35
1–38
5–40

25
25
25
30
35
[77]
Methanosarcina mazei
Strain JL01
Methanobacterium veterum
Strain MK4T
Methanobacterium arcticum
Strain M2T
10–37

10–45

15–45
24–28

28

37
[11,82,83]
a Growth is possible until medium freezes [87]; b Based on the Ratkowsky model [89,90]; c The Ratkowsky model suggests the Tmin for this species is −2.54 °C, however, cultures incubated at 1.7 °C or 3.2 °C were not capable of growth unless growth was first initiated at 20 °C [75].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mickol, R.L.; Laird, S.K.; Kral, T.A. Non-Psychrophilic Methanogens Capable of Growth Following Long-Term Extreme Temperature Changes, with Application to Mars. Microorganisms 2018, 6, 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6020034

AMA Style

Mickol RL, Laird SK, Kral TA. Non-Psychrophilic Methanogens Capable of Growth Following Long-Term Extreme Temperature Changes, with Application to Mars. Microorganisms. 2018; 6(2):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6020034

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mickol, Rebecca L., Sarah K. Laird, and Timothy A. Kral. 2018. "Non-Psychrophilic Methanogens Capable of Growth Following Long-Term Extreme Temperature Changes, with Application to Mars" Microorganisms 6, no. 2: 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6020034

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