The comparative plastisphere microbial community profile at Kung Wiman beach unveils potential plastic-specific degrading microorganisms.

Nutsuda Chaimusik, Natthaphong Sombuttra, Yeampon Nakaramontri, Penjai Sompongchaiyakul, Chawalit Charoenpong, Bungonsiri Intra, Jirayut Euanorasetr
Author Information
  1. Nutsuda Chaimusik: Laboratory of Biotechnological Research for Energy and Bioactive Compounds, Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand.
  2. Natthaphong Sombuttra: Laboratory of Biotechnological Research for Energy and Bioactive Compounds, Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand. ORCID
  3. Yeampon Nakaramontri: Sustainable Polymer & Innovative Composites Material Research Group, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand.
  4. Penjai Sompongchaiyakul: Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  5. Chawalit Charoenpong: Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  6. Bungonsiri Intra: Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  7. Jirayut Euanorasetr: Laboratory of Biotechnological Research for Energy and Bioactive Compounds, Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand. ORCID

Abstract

Background: Plastic waste is a global environmental issue that impacts the well-being of humans, animals, plants, and microorganisms. Microplastic contamination has been previously reported at Kung Wiman Beach, located in Chanthaburi province along with the Eastern Gulf of Thailand. Our research aimed to study the microbial population of the sand and plastisphere and isolate microorganisms with potential plastic degradation activity.
Methods: Plastic and sand samples were collected from Kung Wiman Beach for microbial isolation on agar plates. The plastic samples were identified by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. Plastic degradation properties were evaluated by observing the halo zone on mineral salts medium (MSM) supplemented with emulsified plastics, including polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid (PLA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and bis (2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalate (BHET). Bacteria and fungi were identified by analyzing nucleotide sequence analysis of the 16S rRNA and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions, respectively. 16S and ITS microbiomes analysis was conducted on the total DNA extracted from each sample to assess the microbial communities.
Results: Of 16 plastic samples, five were identified as polypropylene (PP), four as polystyrene (PS), four as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), two as high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and one sample remained unidentified. Only 27 bacterial and 38 fungal isolates were found to have the ability to degrade PLA or BHET on MSM agar. However, none showed degradation capabilities for PS or PVC on MSM agar. Notably, sp. PP5 showed the highest hydrolysis capacity of 1.64 �� 0.12. The 16S rRNA analysis revealed 13 bacterial genera, with seven showing plastic degradation abilities: , , , , , , and . This study reports, for the first time of the BHET-degrading properties of the genera and . Additionally, The ITS analysis identified nine fungal genera, five of which demonstrated plastic degradation abilities: , , , , and . Microbial community composition analysis and linear discriminant analysis effect size revealed certain dominant microbial groups in the plastic and sand samples that were absent under culture-dependent conditions. Furthermore, 16S and ITS amplicon microbiome analysis revealed microbial groups were significantly different in the plastic and sand samples collected.
Conclusions: We reported on the microbial communities found on the plastisphere at Kung Wiman Beach and isolated and identified microbes with the capacity to degrade PLA and BHET.

Keywords

Associated Data

figshare | 10.6084/m9.figshare.23733891.v1

References

  1. Langmuir. 2020 Apr 14;36(14):3963-3969 [PMID: 32216356]
  2. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020 Aug;157:111345 [PMID: 32658701]
  3. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022 Sep;182:113949 [PMID: 35932724]
  4. Sci Total Environ. 2021 Aug 10;781:146700 [PMID: 33812121]
  5. Front Microbiol. 2021 Jun 16;12:673553 [PMID: 34220756]
  6. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021 Jul;168:112452 [PMID: 33991991]
  7. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2022 Feb 15;20:975-988 [PMID: 35242288]
  8. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2018 Mar;38(2):308-320 [PMID: 28764575]
  9. Front Microbiol. 2020 Nov 26;11:580709 [PMID: 33324366]
  10. Arch Microbiol. 2022 Mar 22;204(4):216 [PMID: 35316402]
  11. Science. 2016 Mar 11;351(6278):1196-9 [PMID: 26965627]
  12. Mol Ecol. 2013 Nov;22(21):5271-7 [PMID: 24112409]
  13. Environ Microbiol. 2020 Nov;22(11):4779-4793 [PMID: 32935476]
  14. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018 Feb;127:704-716 [PMID: 29475714]
  15. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017 May;67(5):1613-1617 [PMID: 28005526]
  16. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 05;9(3):e90815 [PMID: 24599478]
  17. Mar Life Sci Technol. 2021 Mar 15;3(2):117-120 [PMID: 37073343]
  18. Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3 [PMID: 27214047]
  19. Biochem Res Int. 2016;2016:9519527 [PMID: 27293894]
  20. Front Microbiol. 2020 Apr 21;11:442 [PMID: 32373075]
  21. Bioresour Technol. 2022 Sep;360:127565 [PMID: 35788392]
  22. Mol Biol Evol. 1987 Jul;4(4):406-25 [PMID: 3447015]
  23. AMB Express. 2017 Dec;7(1):148 [PMID: 28697585]
  24. Microorganisms. 2022 Aug 10;10(8): [PMID: 36014041]
  25. Environ Sci Technol. 2020 Oct 6;54(19):11657-11672 [PMID: 32886491]
  26. Genome Biol. 2011 Jun 24;12(6):R60 [PMID: 21702898]
  27. Bioresour Bioprocess. 2022 Apr 8;9(1):42 [PMID: 38647755]
  28. Sci Total Environ. 2021 Jun 1;771:144719 [PMID: 33548729]
  29. Imeta. 2023 Mar 31;2(2):e101 [PMID: 38868423]
  30. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018 Sep;102(18):7669-7678 [PMID: 29992436]
  31. Mol Biol Evol. 2021 Jun 25;38(7):3022-3027 [PMID: 33892491]
  32. J Basic Microbiol. 2020 Aug;60(8):699-711 [PMID: 32510669]
  33. Front Microbiol. 2023 Feb 17;14:1127308 [PMID: 36876073]
  34. Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6 [PMID: 20383131]
  35. J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5;215(3):403-10 [PMID: 2231712]
  36. Environ Sci Technol. 2013 Jul 2;47(13):7137-46 [PMID: 23745679]

MeSH Term

Actinomycetales
Agar
Bacteria
Microbiota
Plastics
Polyesters
Polystyrenes
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
Sand

Chemicals

Agar
Plastics
Polyesters
Polystyrenes
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
Sand

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0microbialplasticanalysisKungWimandegradationsamplesidentifiedmicroorganismsBeachsand16SITSPlasticplastisphereagarMSMPSPLABHETrevealedgenerareportedstudypotentialcollectedpropertiespolystyrenePVCterephthalaterRNAsamplecommunitiesfivefourpolyethylenebacterialfungalfounddegradeshowedcapacityabilities:communitygroupsBackground:wasteglobalenvironmentalissueimpactswell-beinghumansanimalsplantsMicroplasticcontaminationpreviouslylocatedChanthaburiprovincealongEasternGulfThailandresearchaimedpopulationisolateactivityMethods:isolationplatesFourier-transforminfraredspectroscopyevaluatedobservinghalozonemineralsaltsmediumsupplementedemulsifiedplasticsincludingpolylacticacidpolyvinylchloridebis2-hydroxyethylBacteriafungianalyzingnucleotidesequenceinternaltranscribedspacerregionsrespectivelymicrobiomesconductedtotalDNAextractedassessResults:16polypropylenePPPETtwohigh-densityHDPEoneremainedunidentified2738isolatesabilityHowevernonecapabilitiesNotablyspPP5highesthydrolysis164��01213sevenshowingreportsfirsttimeBHET-degradingAdditionallyninedemonstratedMicrobialcompositionlineardiscriminanteffectsizecertaindominantabsentculture-dependentconditionsFurthermoreampliconmicrobiomesignificantlydifferentConclusions:isolatedmicrobescomparativeprofilebeachunveilsplastic-specificdegradingMicrobiotaPlastic-degradingmarinePlastisphere

Similar Articles

Cited By