Saturday 31 March 2012

Heavy metals detoxification by mercury-resistant bacteria

Heavy metal pollution in industrial areas is a serious environmental concern and metal-resistant microorganisms have been already isolated from various polluted environments. In this study, 13 marine mercury-resistant bacterial strains have been isolated from various locations along the Indian Coast, using seawater nutrient agar (SWNA) amended with various HgCl2 concentrations. Then, bacterial colonies capable of growth with more than 25 ppm of mercury were termed by the authors Bacteria Highly Resistant to Mercury (BHRM) and identified through biochemical and 16S rRNA gene sequence analyses as: Alcaligenes faecalis (7 isolates: GO01, GO02, GP06, GP14, GP15, GP16 and GP17), Bacillus pumilus (3 isolates: GP08, CH13 and S3), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CH07), Brevibacterium iodinium (GP13) and Bacillus sp. (CM10).

Subsequently, each of these isolates has been tested by the authors in order to evaluate their resistance and ability to detoxify Cd, Pb and Hg. Mechanisms of metal resistance and detoxification in microbes include precipitation of metals as phosphates, carbonates or sulfides (for Pb); volatilization (for Hg) via methylation or ethylation; energy-dependent metal efflux systems, intracellular sequestration with cysteine-rich proteins and physical exclusion or entrapment of electronegative components in membranes and extracellular polymeric substances (EPS).

In order to evaluate Hg volatilization, cells were transferred by the authors to plates enriched with 10 ppm Hg. The plates were then covered with a Kodak XAR film and incubated. All of the tested isolates were capable of volatilizing mercury, as indicated by fogging of the film covering the plates (reduction of AgCl2 by gaseous Hg); while a negative control did not volatilize Hg. It is well-known that the ability of volatilizing mercury is conferred by the highly conserved mer operon. Thus, in order to confirm his presence in the isolates, the authors extracted genomic DNA from the cultures and then amplified and visualized the merA region through PCR and gel electrophoresis. Surprisingly, the analyses revealed the presence of merA gene fragments only in 9 of the BHRM isolates, whereas all of them were volatilizing Hg. Thus the authors hypothesized the presence of another unknown non-mer mediated mercury volatilization mechanism in two isolates (CH13 and CM10), but this interesting possibility remains to be confirmed.

To estimate Cadmium detoxification instead, two isolates (CH07, GP06) were tested with different concentrations of Cd (as CdCl2) and metal concentrations were determined by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. Results showed that isolate CH07 removed Cd from the medium at a faster rate than GP06. Cd concentration was reduced from an initial concentration of 100 ppm to 17.4 ppm (75%) by CH07 and to 19.2 ppm (70%) by GP06 in about 72 h. Several mechanisms of Cd resistance have been already described, but according to the authors, the observed metal accumulation in bacterial cell pellets is perhaps consistent with some kind of microbial bioabsorption of the metal.

Finally, regarding lead detoxification, 3 BHRM isolates (CH07, GP13 and S3) were tested by the authors with different concentrations of Pb (as (CH3COO)2Pb) using an experimental procedure similar to that used for Cd. Results showed that CH07 was able to reduce Pb concentration from 100 ppm to 1.8 ppm (>98% removal) in 96 h, while isolates GP13 and S3 removed more than 87% and 88% of Pb respectively from the growth medium. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) analysis showed that Pb was entrapped in the exopolymeric substance (EPS) in the case of isolate CH07 (negatively charged EPS in fact, could bind lead and prevent its entry into the cell), while hydrogen sulfide production suggested that Pb was most likely precipitated as sulfide by isolates GP13 and S3. In addition, EDS analysis of the cells showed the concentrations of Pb and Cd to be as high as 21% and 19%, respectively, while bacteria grown in medium without heavy metals showed no signals for either Cd or Pb. Moreover, the morphology of isolate GP13 was unchanged after growth in medium with 50 ppm Pb, suggesting thus, that Pb is not toxic to the isolate under the conditions tested.

Various metal-resistance mechanisms has been already found and characterized at the molecular level in several other bacterial strains. Moreover, it has been shown that bacterial mobile genetic elements, such as plasmids or transposons, can carry multiple genes encoding for metal resistance. Thus, exposure to one agent may select for microorganisms resistant to several toxicants. So, it is likely that multi-metal resistant BHRM, possess the genetic components for dealing with many toxic metal ions (including Hg, Cd, Zn, Sn, Cu, and Pb) and removing them from the surrounding medium using several high-efficiency processes. Thus, since heavy metals are non-biodegradable, highly toxic and very common in many polluted environments, the bacterial isolates analyzed in this study, definitely hold great promises for the development of new and innovative bioremediation methodologies.

Reference:
De J, Ramaiah N, Vardanyan L (2008) Detoxification of Toxic Heavy Metals by Marine Bacteria
Highly Resistant to Mercury. Marine Biotechnol 10 (4): 471-477  

3 comments:

Mario Lewis said...

Hi Giuseppe,

Very interesting review. Did the authors mention anything about the chemical reaction that makes Hg more volatile via methylation? I find it interesting that bioaccumulation of mercury in humans is a direct result of methylation, and I was wondering what makes the attachment of a methyl group more harmful. Methylation occurs in DNA to prevent the DNA from being transcribed, so I suppose its a form of epigenetic attenuation of DNA transcription.

I read that methylmercury mimics methionine and so it is easily transported across tissues and is quite harmful to humans and perhaps other 'higher' organisms in large doses.

I also found it interesting that these bacteria are able to survive in what is supposedly a toxic environment. I saw a Horizon program sometime ago and there was a scientist who was investigation a bacteria that is able to live in a lake in the US which has high levels of arsenic; another toxic element. They reckon that this bacteria may have evolved separately from the 3 domains of life and might even be considered a new biological entity. Scary! :)

Giuseppe Suaria said...

Hi Mario, Thanks for your comment!

Unfortunately the authors didn't say anything more of what i wrote about the reaction involved in mercury volatilization. Although you are in right, it would have been really interesting to go in deeper detail. Especially because, as far as i know, the most toxic forms of mercury are its organic compounds, such as dimethylmercury and methylmercury. So i wonder how is it possible that, in these bacteria, methylation makes mercury more volatile and therefore less toxic, while in most of other organisms, it makes it more dangerous.

Anyway, i guess that your is a good point. Maybe as you said, it's exactly the fact that methylation makes Hg more transportable across membranes, which makes it more volatile. Probably in this way, it is easier for bacteria to elimate it from the cell and thus detoxify themselves.

However, it is indeed really surprising, how they manage to live in such harmful places, where any other "higher" form of life could not survive. But since we saw that bacteria are basically able to live in every remote and hostile environment of our planet, this doesn't surprise me that much anymore!

Anonymous said...

Hi Giuseppe,
Interesting review there’s actually another interesting study about TBT resistant bacteria that are also resistant to methyl mercury. It’s interesting that they possess two kinds of genes the type mer A mercuric reductase which converts H2+ to H0 the one you mentioned but also mer B organomercurial lyase which is capable of degrading all mercury compounds being responsible for the mercury-carbon bond cleavage so maybe this gene was expressed in those two strains of Bacillus.