Saturday 6 October 2012

Response of microbial communities to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill


Oil spills occur naturally and frequently in the Gulf of Mexico, but never on the scale of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill which released approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil into the ocean over a period in the region of 3 months with an oil plume at a depth of ~1000-1300m. This deep sea oil plume contained gaseous as well as non-gaseous components including saturated hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons and polar compounds. The composition of the microbial communities found at the site of the plume has previously been studied, but there was no information about which microorganisms were active or which functional genes were expressed in the plume. Mason et al. (2012) aimed to determine this by analysing sequenced total RNA metatranscriptomically and the functional gene repertoire from metagenomic samples. One proximal sample (1.5km from the wellhead) and one distal sample (11km from the wellhead) were taken as well as one uncontaminated sample from plume depth (40km from the wellhead), in which no hydrocarbons were detected, at the end of May 2010.

Plume samples had a lower microbial diversity with a dominance of Oceanospirillales not seen in the uncontaminated sample (>60% and 5% respectively, when analyzed metagenomically). This bloom of Oceanospirillales coincided with an increase in bacterial cell densities by 2 orders of magnitude. Further to this, it was found that dominant members of the community were also active, with a relative abundance of transcripts of 46% in the proximal site and 69% in the distal site.

Hydrocarbon degradation genes were found to have a higher abundance in the plume and the entire pathway for degradation of n-alkanes as well as the nearly complete pathway for cyclohexane degradation were both present and abundant in the plume samples, which suggests that the plume was enriched with communities with the capacity for degradation of alkanes. This was likely carried out anaerobically as oxygen was not significantly depleted inside of the plume. Comparison with other studies shows a shift in the natural microbial community composition over time with a succession of bacteria from a community dominated by Oceanospirillales to domination by Colwellia and Cycloclasticus and eventually to methylotrophic bacteria.  Genes for chemotaxis proteins, flagella, pili and signal transduction were also found, providing evidence that bacterial cells may have been actively attracted to and interacting with the oil plume and this may explain how the shifts in community structure occurred.

I believe that the authors have successfully confirmed the views portrayed by many other scientists and studies in demonstrating that the bacteria naturally present in the oceans play an important role in the cleanup of large scale oil spills. This has been proven previously however this study took the approach of looking at the active organisms and gene transcripts rather than the process itself.

Mason, O., Hazen, T., Borglin, S., Chain, P., Dubinsky, P., Fortney, J., Han, J. et al. (2012) Metagenome, metatranscriptome and single-cell sequencing reveal microbial response to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The ISME Journal. 6, 1715-1727
http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v6/n9/pdf/ismej201259a.pdf

5 comments:

  1. Hi Robyn,
    These oil-eating bacteria are really interesting! Nature's own cleaners. I think the chemoxtaxis gene bit is really neat too! Is the paper suggesting that these bacteria are naturally occuring in small numbers and the spill has caused a type of bloom event, as well as attracting others to activlely move towards the spill?
    This metagenomic approach seems to be very popular and increasingly important at the moment but I have to confess I don't currently fully understand all of it; terms like "analysing sequenced total RNA metatranscriptomically" baffle me slightly, can you shed any light on the technique?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, the paper found small numbers of the bacteria in their uncontaminated sample, too, so I think it is suggesting that the spill has caused a bloom, and that the chemotaxis gene is contributing to how many of them are in the area also.
    Metatranscriptomics is a technique for studying the complete set of transcriptomes in an organism at any one point, so it shows which genes are actively being transcribed and are in use at the time of study.
    Metagenomics is the study of the entire genomes.
    The use of both of these allowed the authors to see the entire functional gene "bank" present in their samples and then look at what portion of this was actually actively being used.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a great summary of a complex paper incorporating lots of great technical advances. Just to clarify Robyn's comment - metagenomics depends on isolating and sequencing DNA, and tells you what genes are present in the sample, so is ideal for indicating the diversity of organism in the environments. Metatranscriptomics depends on isolating RNA from the sample, making a DNA copy and sequencing that. Because messenger RNA is very short-lived, this will give you a picture of what genes are being expressed at the time, i.e. what the bacteria are actually doing. The authors also used an amazing technique where individual cells are sorted and the DNA extracted from them separately, then individual genomes are sequenced. In this way, the authors built up a picture of the metabolic pathways and transport mechanisms for the oil degradation by these Oceanospiralles bacteria. Here's a simple(ish) review outlining single cell genomics for those interested. http://www.biotechniques.com/BiotechniquesJournal/2012/May/Single-cell-Genomics-Defining-Microbiologys-Dark-Matter/biotechniques-330550.html?service=print

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Robyn, I really enjoyed this blog post. I think it would be a really good study if this could be taken a step further by documenting whether the number of Oceanospirillales decreases as the oil gets cleared up. Do you know if anything like this is in progress at the moment?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Hannah,

    I'm not aware of anything like this, however I believe that samples collected at the time of the spill were analysed quite a long time after the event in this study so it is quite possible that more were taken later on and could be analysed in the future...

    However, as they mention that spills are frequent in this area naturally (but on a much, much smaller scale) then maybe the samples that they took well away from the wellhead are similar to what this area will eventually return to.

    Robyn

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.