Every surface in the marine environment has a layer of
adsorbed organic molecules that shapes the initial microbial colonization of
substrates. Once attached, many microbes will build a biofilm using
extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) as their cement. This matrix
facilitates survival and colonization in conditions where solitary or
planktonic life could not persist. Surface and environmental properties
influence the initial attachment and EPS production, with a domino effect on
biofilm architecture and community composition.
However our understanding of biofilm formation is based on
laboratory studies, which exclude the influence of complex environmental
interactions. There is a growing interest in examining the ecological dynamics
of biofilms and comparing the relative roles of substrate and environmental
conditions in biofilm community development. Deep sea biofilms have been
especially neglected, which is why this study focused on a cold seep deep sea
environment.
When pressure and tectonic activity force fluid expulsions
over the seabed, a cold seep is born. Hollows in the ocean floor can retain
these fluids, creating a hypersaline environment called a brine pool, with
a seep water environment moving across the top of it. The banquet of
hydrogen sulphide, methane and other hydrocarbons supports a diverse party of sulfur/sulphide
oxidising, sulfur reducing and methane oxidising Bacteria and Archaea.
The taxa described so far in cold seeps have all been from
symbioses, sediments and microbial mats. Though microbial mats are essentially
very large and complex biofilms, they initiate in nutrient rich sediments
rather than on the adsorbed organic layers of surfaces like biofilms. Therefore
they have distinct routes of initiation and development. This study probed the
hypothesis that biofilm and free living community composition on artificial
substrates would differ between and within the brine pool and the overlying
seep water. The microbiological tools used included 16S rDNA tag
pyrosequencing, clone libraries and scanning electron microscopy.
Sulfate concentrations were high in the brine pool, so
sulfate must have been being transported there from the seep water. This may be
simply because sulfate sinks, so microbial or viral processes may be driving
sulfate input into the brine pool. Regardless, the result was the selection of
sulfate reducer biofilms; this type of metabolism is favoured by the increased
sulfate uptake and survival provided by biofilms in these extreme conditions.
The planktonic community of the seep water was more diverse
than the biofilms there, suggesting that substrate had a strong selective
effect on what community compositions developed on it. Between the brine pool
and the seep water, biofilm communities were highly distinct, the former being
dominated by Deltaproteobacteria sulfate reducers (Desulfobacula) and the latter by a Gammaproteobacteria genus (Thiomicrospira) known for its sulfide, thiosulfate
and sulfur oxidising abilities. Thiomicrospira
are notable because they use an alternative sulfur oxidation pathway from the soxB gene one used by most other sulfur
oxidisers, which may allow them to thrive in deep sea vent systems. Hydrogen
sulfide was abundant only in the seep water, which probably favoured Thiomicrospira, subsequently creating
high sulfate levels in the brine pool due to this bacteria’s oxidation of hydrogen
sulfide. Sulfate becomes the main oxygen donor in suboxic conditions, favouring
the sulfate reducers. Clearly there is a unique sulfur cycle in cold seeps
which drives microbial separation between brine pool and seep water biofilm
communities. It also dwarfs the influence of substrate, showing that
environmental conditions are stronger determinants of biofilm composition in
cold seeps.
Though the authors highlight the implications for
understanding biocorrosion and fouling of deep sea facilities, I think this is
actually an important description of the role of cold seep microbial systems in
ocean processes. The coupling of these complementary communities between two
adjacent but distinct environments warrants further study, to understand its
roles in climate change and ecology.
Lee, O. O., Wang, Y., Tian, R., Zhang, W., Shek, C. S.,
Bougouffa, S., ... & Qian, P. Y. (2014). In situ environment
rather than substrate type dictates microbial community structure of biofilms
in a cold seep system. Scientific reports, 4.
You mentioned that substrate in the seep water could have a selective effect on the community within the biofilm and that this was less diverse than the planktonic communities...could this be because the biofilm bacteria tend to be more tolerant/ adapted to the conditions that other microorganisms may find hostile at cold seeps? As the free-living bacteria are not necessarily exposed to the same intensity/ frequency of these conditions (such as high sulfate levels) so more are able to cope with their environment (in the water column).
ReplyDeleteAlso, does it mention in the study whether these planktonic and/ or bacteria are involved in any other biogeochemical processes other than the sulfur cycle, and are there similar or different predominant types, as was found in the biofilms in the brine pool and seep water?
The main reason that seep water biofilms consisted of a specific community composition seems to be because sulfate reducers benefit especially from being in a biofilm (due to survival and sulfate uptake increases). This probably allowed Desulfobacula to dominate these biofilms, reducing diversity. Biofilms also do probably concentrate sulfate, creating more extreme conditions than in the water column.
DeleteThis study focused on biofilms, so it kind of ignored the planktonic communities. This particular seep system seems to be sulfur driven, but this is not representative, given the variability of deep sea niches. There are other seep studies which revolve around sulfide symbioses and methane.