Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of a Shotgun Metagenomics Approach for Detection of ESBL- and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales in Culture Negative Patients Recovered from Acute Leukemia
Next Article in Special Issue
Carbon Emission and Biodiversity of Arctic Soil Microbial Communities of the Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land Archipelagos
Previous Article in Journal
Activation of MyD88-Dependent TLR Signaling Modulates Immune Response of the Mouse Heart during Pasteurella multocida Infection
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bacterial Communities of Lamiacea L. Medicinal Plants: Structural Features and Rhizosphere Effect
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/microorganisms11020401
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Active Sulfate-Reducing Bacterial Community in the Camel Gut

by
Olga V. Karnachuk
1,*,
Inna A. Panova
1,
Vasilii L. Panov
1,
Olga P. Ikkert
1,
Vitaly V. Kadnikov
2,
Igor I. Rusanov
3,
Marat R. Avakyan
1,
Lubov B. Glukhova
1,
Anastasia P. Lukina
1,
Anatolii V. Rakitin
1,
Shahjahon Begmatov
2,
Alexey V. Beletsky
2,
Nikolai V. Pimenov
3 and
Nikolai V. Ravin
2
1
Laboratory of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Tomsk State University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
2
Institute of Bioengineering, Research Center of Biotechnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prosp, bld. 33-2, 119071 Moscow, Russia
3
Institute of Microbiology, Research Center of Biotechnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071 Moscow, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(2), 401; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020401
Submission received: 29 November 2022 / Revised: 18 January 2023 / Accepted: 1 February 2023 / Published: 4 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genome Analysis of Microbial Communities in the Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The diversity and activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) in the camel gut remains largely unexplored. An abundant SRB community has been previously revealed in the feces of Bactrian camels (Camelus bactrianus). This study aims to combine the 16S rRNA gene profiling, sulfate reduction rate (SRR) measurement with a radioactive tracer, and targeted cultivation to shed light on SRB activity in the camel gut. Fresh feces of 55 domestic Bactrian camels grazing freely on semi-arid mountain pastures in the Kosh-Agach district of the Russian Altai area were analyzed. Feces were sampled in early winter at an ambient temperature of −15 °C, which prevented possible contamination. SRR values measured with a radioactive tracer in feces were relatively high and ranged from 0.018 to 0.168 nmol S cm−3 day−1. The 16S rRNA gene profiles revealed the presence of Gram-negative Desulfovibrionaceae and spore-forming Desulfotomaculaceae. Targeted isolation allowed us to obtain four pure culture isolates belonging to Desulfovibrio and Desulforamulus. An active SRB community may affect the iron and copper availability in the camel intestine due to metal ions precipitation in the form of sparingly soluble sulfides. The copper-iron sulfide, chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), was detected by X-ray diffraction in 36 out of 55 analyzed camel feces. In semi-arid areas, gypsum, like other evaporite sulfates, can be used as a solid-phase electron acceptor for sulfate reduction in the camel gastrointestinal tract.

1. Introduction

Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) are a common constituent of the gut microbiota in humans and other animals [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. SRB activity in the human gastrointestinal tract has been associated with different pathologies including inflammation, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer [3,9,10,11,12,13]. On the other hand, hydrogen sulfide produced by Desulfovibrio in the gut has been shown to improve insulin secretion and sensitivity [14] and provide fixed nitrogen [15]. Desulfovibrio has been reported to be the dominant SRB genus in the human intestine [16]. Desulfovibrio spp. were the predominant SRB in the piglet gut [17] and have been documented in the ruminal content of cows, sheep, reindeer, and red deer [7]. H2-uptake hydrogenases have been found in 47 Desulfovibrio composite genomes (MAGs) from dairy cattle (Bos taurus), water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), yak (Bos grunniens), goat (Capra aegagrus), sheep (Ovis aries), roe deer (Capreolus pygargus), and water deer (Hydropotes inermis) [18]. Desulfovibrio was among the 10 most common genera from the cecum in horses [19]. The diversity and activity of SRB in the camel gut remains largely unexplored. Ming and co-authors revealed an abundant sulfate-reducing community, mainly Desulfovibrio, in fecal samples from Mongolian domestic Bactrian camels as well as Mongolian wild Bactrian camels [20]. The abundance of Desulfovibrio in the gastrointestinal tract of camels is attributed by the authors to their bioremediation potential, including the precipitation of toxic metals in the form of sulfides, which helps camels to survive in harsh environments and feed on poisonous plants.
Biogenic iron sulfides, such as pyrite (FeS2) and others, are considered as geochemical markers of SRB activity in various biotopes. A distinctive feature of hydrogen sulfide, the end product of microbial sulfate reduction, is its high reactivity leading to the formation of sparingly soluble metal sulfides. The role of biogenic H2S in the formation of digenetic pyrite (FeS2) and other iron sulfides in environmental biotopes is well recognized [21]. The formation of crystalline iron sulfides as a result of SRB activity in the intestine has received less attention compared to natural environments. Low-soluble greigite and pyrite formation by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans AY5 isolated from a fecal sample of a person with autistic spectrum disorders has been demonstrated [22]. No crystalline phases or Cu sulfides were detected in the batch culture of Tissierella sp. P1, an intestinal bacterium that produces H2S from peptone [23]. In our preliminary study of the mineralogical composition of camel feces, we detected a copper iron sulfide, chalcopyrite (CuFeS2). We hypothesized that the CuFeS2 occurrence may indicate an active process of microbial sulfate reduction in the camel gut. This study aims to test the hypothesis by combining the 16S rRNA gene profiling, sulfate reduction rate measurement with a radioactive tracer, and SRB targeted isolation from camel fecal samples.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling and Mineralogical Characteristics of Camel Feces

Fecal samples were collected from domestic camels continuously grazing freely wild vegetation, including thorny shrubs, in the Chagan River valley close to the Beltyr village. The site is located in the south-eastern part of the Russian Altai at the elevation at 1959 m above sea level in the permafrost area. The Bactrian two-humped camels (Camelus bactrianus) inhabit the cold deserts of southern areas of central (Kazakhstan, Iran) and eastern (Russia, Mongolia, China) Asia [24]. Bactrian camels have been bred in the south-east of the Altai Mountain, on the Russian border with Mongolia, since the time of the Silk Road. Domestic camels are grazing freely on natural grasslands and shrublands in semi-arid steppe and arid mountain steppe all year round. Samples were collected from 55 individual healthy adult animals directly after defecation on 18 November 2021. The ambient air temperature at the time of sampling was −15 °C, which reduced the possibility of contamination by microorganisms from soil and air. The samples were collected aseptically into sterile plastic bags. The fresh fecal samples were split into two parts and transported to the laboratory, where the part for DNA isolation was stored at −80 °C and the part for SRB cultivation was kept in a refrigerator. A sample of saline soil, where camels come to lick the salt, was also collected in a sterile plastic bag for mineralogical analysis.
The fecal and soil samples were air-dried and ground manually. Powder XRD was performed with a Rigaku Ultima 4 diffractometer (Rigaku Corp., Tokyo, Japan) with CuKα radiation. The samples were packed into zero-background quartz sample holders and step-scanned at the 2θ range from 10° to 75° using a 2θ step interval of 0.02° and a counting time of 0.8 s. The diffraction patterns were analyzed with the Crystallographica-Search Match software and the PDF-4 database (International Centre for Diffraction Data, http://www.icdd.com accessed on 31 October 2022).

2.2. Measurement of Sulfate-Reduction Rate with Radioactive Tracer

Radioactive sulfate was used to determine the sulfate-reduction rates (SRR) in camel feces. Feces were placed in sterile 5 mL syringes sealed with butyl rubber stoppers, which received aliquots (300 µL) of Na235SO4 (3 µCi ‘Perkin-Elmer’, Waltham, MA, USA) by injection through the butyl rubber stopper. The syringes were incubated in the dark at 37 °C, for 24 h followed by the addition of 1 mL of 2M KOH to terminate the reaction and fix sulfide. Radioactivity was measured in the acid volatile sulfide (AVS), H2S and FeS, and chromium-reducible sulfur (CRS) fractions, which included pyrite, and elemental and organic sulfur, as previously described [25,26]. Sulfate concentration was analyzed by ion chromatography (Dionex). The average SRR and standard deviation were calculated from triplicate incubations.

2.3. SRB Enrichments and Pure Culture Isolation

The initial enrichments were set up immediately upon fecal samples arrival to the lab in freshwater Widdel and Bak (WB) medium [27] that contained (per liter) 4 g Na2SO4, 0.2 g KH2PO4, 0.25 g NH4Cl, 1 g NaCl, 0.4 g MgCl2·6H2O, 0.5 g KCl, 0.113 g CaCl2, 2 mL of vitamin solution, 1 mL of microelement solution, 1 mL each of Na2SeO3 (final concentration 23.6 µM), and Na2WO4 (24.2 µM) solutions, and solidified with 1.5% agar. Medium was adjusted to pH 7.2 with NaHCO3, and Na2S·9H2O was used as a reducing agent. Each cultivation vial received a Fe0 wire as previously described [28]. Formate (7.5 mM) and acetate (2 mM) was used as an electron donor and carbon source, respectively, to isolate the pure culture initially. Lactate (18 mM) was used for the subsequent cultivations. The enrichment cultures were incubated at 37 °C. The 16S rRNA genes were amplified using the primer pair 27F and 1492R and sequenced commercially by Syntol Co. (Moscow, Russia) using the Sanger method.

2.4. 16S rRNA–Based Microbial Community Profiling

Total genomic DNA from camel feces was extracted using a Power Soil DNA isolation kit (MO BIO Laboratories, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA) and stored at −20 °C. The 16S rRNA gene fragments were amplified by PCR using the universal primers 341F (5′-CCTAYGGGDBGCWSCAG-3′) and 806R (5′-GGACTACNVGGGTHTCTAAT-3′). PCR fragments were barcoded using the Nextera XT Index Kit v.2 (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) and sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq (2 × 300 nt paired-end reads). Overlapping reads were merged using FLASH v.1.2.11 [29]. Low-quality reads were excluded, and the remaining sequences were clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at 97% identity using the Usearch program [30]. Chimeric sequences were removed during clustering by the Usearch algorithm. To calculate the relative abundances of OTU, all 16S rRNA gene sequences were mapped to OTU sequences at 97% global identity threshold by Usearch. OTUs comprising only a single read were discarded. The taxonomic identification of OTUs was performed by searches against the SILVA v.138 rRNA sequence database using the VSEARCH v. 2.14.1 algorithm [31]. The alpha diversity indices at a 97% OTU cut-off level were calculated using Usearch. To avoid sequencing depth bias, the number of reads generated for each sample were randomly sub-sampled to the size of the smallest set (KV116 sample) using the QIIME 2 2022.8 tool [32].

3. Results

3.1. Mineralogical Composition of the Camel Feces and Soil Sample

The mineralogical composition of the camel feces revealed the presence of iron copper and copper sulfides, including chalcopyrite (CuFeS2) and villamaninite (CuS2) (Figure 1). Villamininte is a rare copper sulfide with small amounts of other elements [33]. In total, 36 out of 55 analyzed camel fecal samples contained chalcopyrite, but only three showed diagnostic peaks for villamaninite. The feces also contained alumosilicates: quartz (SiO2), albite (NaAlSi3O8), muscovite (K,Na)Al2(Si,Al)4O10(OH)2), and others. Gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) was present in 35 samples and calcite, CaCO3, in 27 samples.
The mineralogical composition of the saline soil revealed the presence of an anhydrous sodium sulfate, thenardite (Na2SO4), and hydrous iron sulfate, melanterite (Fe2SO4·7 H2O) (Figure 2). Halite (NaCl) also occurs in the saline soils.

3.2. Composition of Fecal Microbiomes

To characterize the taxonomic compositions of microbial communities a total of 868,359 sequences of 16S rRNA gene fragments were determined for 55 analyzed fecal samples and clustered into 6167 OTUs at the level of 97% sequence identity. The number of species-level OTUs present in individual samples ranged from 580 to 1282 (Supplementary Table S1). The results of the taxonomic classification of the OTUs are shown in Figure 3 and in Supplementary Table S2. The fecal microbiomes of camels were dominated by the phyla Firmicutes (from 39.7% to 70.2% of all 16S rRNA gene sequences, on average 54.4%), Bacteroidota (from 8.4% to 29.3%, on average 20.1%). Among the Firmicutes, the most numerous groups were Oscillospiraceae, Lachnospiraceae, Christensenellaceae, Ruminococcaceae, Monoglobaceae, Peptostreptococcaceae, Anaerovoracaceae, and uncultured family-level lineages UCG-010, UCG-014, and ‘Eubacterium coprostanoligenes group’, as defined in the SILVA taxonomy. Most of the Bacteroidetes were assigned to the families Rikenellaceae, Bacteroidaceae, Prevotellaceae, and uncultured lineages ‘M2PB4-65 termite group’, p-251-o5, F082, and UCG-001 of the order Bacteroidales. Other abundant bacterial phyla were Verrucomicrobiota (on average 10.2%, mostly Akkermansia sp. and the candidate genus WCHB1-41), Spirochaetota (2.4%, mostly Treponema sp.), Proteobacteria (2.1%), and Actinobacteriota (1.8%). Archaea were mostly represented by methanogens of the phyla Halobacterota (3.5%) and Euryarchaeota (2.0%); the most numerous OTUs were assigned to the genera Methanocorpusculum and Methanobrevibacter. Other microbial phyla accounted on average for less than 1% of 16S rRNA gene reads.
Among lineages known to comprise sulfate-reducing microorganisms, the orders Desulfotomaculales (Firmicutes) and Desulfovibrionales (Desulfobacterota) were identified, each accounting for about 0.3% of the 16S rRNA gene sequences. Most of the sequences assigned to the Desulfotomaculales belonged to two OTUs, comprising on average 0.26% and 0.05% of the community, and phylogenetically distant from known species. Considering cultured isolates, the closest relative of these OTUs was Desulfoscipio (Desulfotomaculum) geothermicum strain B2T but the level of 16S rRNA gene sequence identity was only 92.3% and 90.1%. One OTU was assigned to the genus Desulfofundulus, but it accounted on average for 0.01% of the microbiomes and was detected in only a few animals.
Most of the sequences assigned to Desulfovibrionales were phylogenetically close to the genera ‘Mailhella’ (0.23%) and Desulfovibrio (0.09%) of the family Desulfovibrionaceae. Particularly, the most numerous OTU (0.22%) showed 93.1% sequence identity with ‘Mailhella’ sp., a sulfate-reducing bacterium from the cecum of laying hens [34]. Several OTUs represented the genus Desulfovibrio; the most abundant of them (0.06%) showed 94.9% sequence identity to Desulfovibrio desulfuricans and probably represented a distinct species of this genus.

3.3. Sulfate Reduction Rate

The sulfate reduction rate (SRR) measured in three fecal samples was relatively high and varied from 0.018 to 0.168 nmol S cm−3 day−1 (Figure 4). The acid volatile sulfide fraction (AVS), which includes H2S and FeS, was the only product of 35SO42− reduction in samples KV147 and KV149. No tracer was detected in CRS, which may include pyrite and elemental and organic sulfur. On the contrary, the CRS fraction reached up to 30% in sample KV104, implying that metal sulfides may be formed even within 24 h of incubation.

3.4. SRB Cultivation

Since the 16S rRNA gene profiling revealed the occurrence of SRB belonging to Desulfovibrionales and Desulfotomaculales in camel feces, the targeted isolation has been applied to members of these lineages. The initial SRB enrichment cultures were set up with a mixture of formate (7.5 mM) and acetate (2 mM) as an electron donor to prevent overgrowth with the abundant heterotrophic bacteria on the medium with organic acids [35]. The incubation temperature was 37 °C. The electron donor was changed to lactate (18 mM) after the sulfidogenic growth appearance. Single colony isolation followed by multiple serial dilutions on the WB medium with lactate as an electron donor allowed us to obtain three pure culture isolates, designated as strain 1211, strain 1214, and strain 1223. Additional enrichment culture exposure to elevated temperature conditions at 90 °C for 20 min allowed us to isolate a spore-forming sulfidogen, designated strain 1198.
The 16S rRNA gene sequence of strain 1211 placed it within the genus Desulforamulus (Desulfotomaculales) (Figure 4). The closest relatives of the strain were D. reducens with sequence similarity of 97.1% and D. aeronauticus (96.1%). Considering the 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity boundary cutoff of 98.7% [36], strain 1211 may represent a novel species of the genus Desulforamulus. Strain 1211 could grow at 4% of NaCl in the medium. A spore-forming strain 1198 was phylogenetically distant from known SRB (Figure 5). The closest relative of the strain 1198 was Desulfohalotomaculum halophilum with a 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity of 92.0%.
Phylogenetic analyses placed strains 1214 and 1223 within the order Desulfovibrionales. Strain 1214 was a close relative of Desulfovibrio simplex with the 16S rRNA gene similarity of 98.9% (Figure 6). Unlike D. simplex [37], strain 1214 used glucose, fructose, and sucrose as electron donors for sulfate reduction, and could grow at 3% of NaCl in the medium. The 16S rRNA gene sequence of strain 1223 was 99.9% similar to that of Desulfovibrio porci (Figure 6), assuming that strain 1223 is a novel strain of D. porci isolated recently from swine pig feces under a large cultivation project, called the ‘Pig intestinal bacterial collection’ [38].

4. Discussion

The fecal microbiomes of camels were dominated by the phylum Firmicutes followed by Bacteroidota and Verrucomoicrobiota. A similar diversity pattern was described previously for Bactrian camels from Gobi-Altai region of Mongolia and from Inner Mongolia, China [20]. Our results on the SRR measurements and 16S rRNA gene profiling of fecal samples demonstrate that active dissimilatory sulfate reduction occurs in the camel intestine. Thus far, Desulfovibrio was considered the dominant SRB genus in the intestines of humans and other animals [3,7,16,17,18,19]. Particularly, Desulfovibrio was abundant in the fecal microbial communities of Mongolian wild and domestic Bactrian camels [20]. Therefore, the detection of Desulfovibrio in the microbial communities of camel feces was an expected result. In addition, molecular analysis and cultivation revealed spore-forming sulfidogenic Firmicutes inhabiting the camel intestine. Given the 92.0% similarity of the 16S rRNA gene to its closest relative, D. halophilum, strain 1198 may represent a novel genus within Desulfotomaculaceae. Given the similarity of the 16S rRNA gene to the closest relative of D. reducens, strain 1211 may represent a new species of the genus Desulforamulus. The first SRB pure culture isolated from animals was Desulforamulus ruminis (formerly Desulfotomaculum ruminis), a relative of strain 1211. D. ruminis was isolated by G. S. Coleman in the 1950s from the rumen of hay-fed sheep [9]. The large amount of toxic sulfide in ruminants has been a concern due to the presence of sulfate in grass and hay [39]. More recent genome sequencing revealed in D. ruminis a taurine degradation pathway, an organic compound that is widely distributed in animal tissues, especially the large intestine, and can provide an electron acceptor (sulfite) in biotopes depleted of sulfate [40].
16S rRNA gene profiling revealed that a significant share of Desulfovibrionaceae from camel feces was a relative of ‘Mailhella’ sp. The genus ‘Mailhella’ and its cultivated members have not yet been validly published. The first cultivated bacterium belonging to this genus was isolated from a fresh stool sample from a healthy French patient and was named ‘Mailhella massiliensis’ [41]. The type strain of the species has been poorly characterized and no genomes of the genus are available. Recently, ‘Mailhella’ was detected in the cecum of laying hens using 16S rRNA sequencing [34], confirming its role in H2S production in animals.
The relatively high abundance of Spirochaetota revealed in the studied camel fecal samples may be an indirect consequence of a significant H2S amount produced by sulfate-reducers. Spirochetes are characterized by a lack of advanced mechanisms for oxygen stress defense and often co-exist with sulfidogenes producing H2S, a strong reductant, in the environmental biotopes [42]. In general, the composition of camel feces microbiome revealed in our study corroborates the previously reported dominance of Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia in Inner Mongolian domestic and wild Bactrian camels [23].
Hydrogen sulfide produced by SRB binds iron and other metals in the form of low-soluble sulfides. The formation of biogenic crystalline iron sulfides–pyrite, marcasite, greigite, and mackinawite by SRB is well documented [20,43,44,45,46]. Various copper sulfides, including covellite, chalcocite, and chalcopyrite, have been detected in SRB pure cultures [47,48,49]. Despite the solid recognition of SRB as an intestine inhabitant, little attention was paid to the metal precipitation by biogenic H2S produced by sulfidogenic bacteria in this environment. Low-soluble metal formation in the gastrointestinal tract can have two consequences. First, it reduces the bioavailability of metals. A previous study demonstrated the formation of insoluble greigite and pyrite by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans AY5 isolated from a person with autistic spectrum disorders [21]. Iron and copper deficiencies have been documented for this neurodevelopmental disease [50]. The formation of copper iron sulfide, chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), is an overlooked consequence of active sulfate reduction in the intestine. The formation of insoluble sulfides implies that copper can precipitate with iron and be excreted from the organism as chalcopyrite. Chalcopyrite as a diagenetic mineral requires the preliminary formation of iron sulfides, and its formation reaction proceeds through a series of metastable Cu-Fe-sulfide intermediaries [51]. Periods of undernutrition for copper and zinc have been reported for camel metabolism [52]. Nutritional factors are believed to control copper status in camel rather than physiology [53]. The authors report a significant effect of copper supplements in the form of copper sulfate salt. Iron deficiency has not been reported in animals grazing in natural conditions [53]. The formation and excretion of chalcopyrite due to active sulfate reduction in the camel gut can be an overlooked cause of iron and copper deficiency.
On the other hand, the precipitation of insoluble metal sulfides in the intestine can detoxify harmful metal ions. The significant share of Desulfovibrio in the camel intestine observed in a previous study was determined to aid the camel’s survival in harsh conditions and enable them to consume a diet of sharp, thorny and poisonous plants in a semi-arid environment [20]. The genome analysis of D. porci revealed genes coding for the HydH/G zinc/lead two-component system, suggesting resistance to high environmental zinc and lead levels [38].
It is plausible that in arid and semi-arid environments, the camel food can be enriched with sulfate, an electron acceptor for SRB. Evaporate gypsum is a common mineral in the desert environments due to climatic conditions, and in some locations, it even crystallizes as desert roses. The appearance of gypsum nodules in sedimentary rocks of the Oligocene-Lower Miocene Kosh-Agach Formation was reported [54]. Camels require salt supplements in their food and often graze on pastures with salty plants and bushes [55]. A mineralogical analysis of saline soil located near a pasture area where camels come to lick salt, did not reveal gypsum presence. However, two other sulfates, thenardite (Na2SO4) and melanterite (Fe2SO4·7H2O), were discovered in the soil sample. Thenardite is a common mineral for arid evaporite environments. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis revealed gypsum presence in 63.6% of the studied camel feces, its source remains unresolved. CaSO4 can serve as a solid-phase electron acceptor for SRB. Sulfide formation by Desulfovibrio spp. from gypsum has been shown to be almost compatible in rate and quantity to that produced from soluble sulfate [56]. The gypsum used in animal bedding has been shown to be a source of H2S, produced by Desulfovibrio in swine finishing facility waste [35]. Use of the sulfate entity from gypsum by SRB can result in the formation of calcium carbonate, which is proved to be produced as a result of dissimilatory sulfate reduction [57,58]. CaCO3 was present in 49.1% of the studied camel feces.
In conclusion, an active sulfate-reducing consortium is present in the Bactrian camel intestine freely grazing on semi-arid mountain pastures in the Kosh-Agach district of the Russian Altai area. Metal sulfides, chalcopyrite, and villamaninte, detected in camel feces can be considered as geochemical markers of microbial sulfate reduction. Iron copper sulfide, chalcopyrite (CuFeS2) was observed in 65% of the studied camel feces. Both Desulfovibrionales and Desulfotomaculales were present in the SRB consortium observed in camel feces. Evaporate gypsum intake may support dissimilatory sulfate reduction in the camels’ gut and input into copper and iron binding into low-soluble sulfides and excretion from the organism.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11020401/s1. Table S1: Sequencing statistics and diversity indices; Table S2: Relative abundance and taxonomic classification of OTUs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.V.K.; investigation, I.A.P., V.L.P., O.P.I., I.I.R., L.B.G., N.V.P. and A.V.R.; resources, A.V.R., A.P.L. and V.V.K.; data curation, M.R.A., S.B., A.V.B. and N.V.R.; writing—original draft preparation, O.V.K. and N.V.R.; writing—review and editing, O.V.K. and N.V.R.; supervision, O.V.K.; funding acquisition, O.V.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation in the framework of the Federal scientific-technical program of the genetic technologies development for 2019–2027 (Agreement № 075-15-2021-1401, 3 November 2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Biological Institute of National Research Tomsk State University (protocol number 43, 30 November 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data generated from 16S rRNA gene sequencing have been deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) and are available under the accession numbers SRR17182714-SRR17182718, SRR17182624-SRR17182633, SRR17182635-SRR17182644, SRR17182646-SRR17182666, and SRR17182668-SRR17182676. The GenBank accession number for the 16S rRNA gene sequences of Desulforamulus sp. strain 1211, Desulfovibrio sp. strain 1214, Desulfovibrio porci strain 1223, and strain 1198 are OP441090, OP456073, OP558973, and OP394179, respectively.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Vladislav Takhanov, Ezen Chunov, and Miron Chunov for their invaluable help in sample collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gibson, G.R.; Macfarlane, G.T.; Cummings, J.H. Occurrence of sulphate-reducing bacteria in human faeces and the relationship of dissimilatory sulphate reduction to methanogenesis in the large gut. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1988, 65, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Deplancke, B.; Hristova, K.R.; Oakley, H.A.; McCracken, V.J.; Aminov, R.; Mackie, R.I.; Gaskins, H.R. Molecular Ecological Analysis of the Succession and Diversity of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in the Mouse Gastrointestinal Tract. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 2166–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Macfarlane, G.T.; Cummings, J.H.; Macfarlane, S. Sulphate-reducing bacteria and the human large intestine. In Sulphate-Reducing Bacteria. Environmental and Engineered Systems; Barton, L.L., Hamilton, W.A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 503–523. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rey, F.E.; Gonzalez, M.D.; Cheng, J.; Wu, M.; Ahern, P.P.; Gordon, J.I. Metabolic niche of a prominent sulfate-reducing human gut bacterium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 13582–13587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barton, L.L.; Ritz, N.L.; Fauque, G.D.; Lin, H.C. Sulfur Cycling and the Intestinal Microbiome. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2017, 62, 2241–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Dordević, D.; Jančíková, S.; Vítězová, M.; Kushkevych, I. Hydrogen sulfide toxicity in the gut environment: Meta-analysis of sulfate-reducing and lactic acid bacteria in inflammatory processes. J. Adv. Res. 2021, 27, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Glendinning, L.; Genç, B.; Wallace, R.J.; Watson, M. Metagenomic analysis of the cow, sheep, reindeer and red deer rumen. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Singh, S.B.; Coffman, C.N.; Carroll-Portillo, A.; Varga, M.G.; Lin, H.C. Notch Signaling Pathway Is Activated by Sulfate Reducing Bacteria. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 695299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Coleman, G.S. A Sulphate-Reducing Bacterium from the Sheep Rumen. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1960, 22, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gibson, G.R.; Macfarlane, G.T.; Cummings, J.H. Sulphate reducing bacteria and hydrogen metabolism in the human large intestine. Gut 1993, 34, 437–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Scanlan, P.D.; Shanahan, F.; Marchesi, J.R. Culture-independent analysis of desulfovibrios in the human distal colon of healthy, colorectal cancer and polypectomized individuals. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2009, 69, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Bisson-Boutelliez, C.; Massin, F.; Dumas, D.; Miller, N.; Lozniewski, A. Desulfovibrio spp. survive within KB cells and modulate inflammatory responses. Mol. Oral Microbiol. 2010, 25, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kushkevych, I.; Martínková, K.; Vítězová, M.; Rittmann, S.K.R. Intestinal Microbiota and Perspectives of the Use of Meta-Analysis for Comparison of Ulcerative Colitis Studies. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, L.; Gao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, G.; Wang, C.; Zhao, Z.; Li, S. Chondroitin sulfate stimulates the secretion of H2S by Desulfovibrio to improve insulin sensitivity in NAFLD mice. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 213, 631–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sayavedra, L.; Li, T.; Batista, M.B.; Seah, B.K.B.; Booth, C.; Zhai, Q.; Chen, W.; Narbad, A. Desulfovibrio diazotrophicus sp. nov., a sulfate-reducing bacterium from the human gut capable of nitrogen fixation. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 3164–3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Loubinoux, J.; Bronowicki, J.-P.; Pereira, I.A.C.; Mougenel, J.-L.; Faou, A.E. Sulfate-reducing bacteria in human feces and their association with inflammatory bowel diseases. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2002, 40, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Ran, S.; Mu, C.; Zhu, W. Diversity and community pattern of sulfate-reducing bacteria in piglet gut. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 10, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xie, F.; Jin, W.; Si, H.; Yuan, Y.; Tao, Y.; Liu, J.; Wang, X.; Yang, C.; Li, Q.; Yan, X.; et al. An integrated gene catalog and over 10,000 metagenome-assembled genomes from the gastrointestinal microbiome of ruminants. Microbiome 2021, 9, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Aleman, M.; Sheldon, S.A.; Jospin, G.; Coil, D.; Stratton-Phelps, M.; Eisen, J. Caecal microbiota in horses with trigeminal-mediated headshaking. Vet. Med. Sci. 2022, 8, 1049–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ming, L.; Yi, L.; Siriguleng; Hasi, S.; He, J.; Hai, L.; Wang, Z.; Guo, F.; Qiao, X. Jirimutu Comparative analysis of fecal microbial communities in cattle and Bactrian camels. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rickard, D.; Luther, G.W. Chemistry of Iron Sulfides. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 514–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Karnachuk, O.V.; Ikkert, O.P.; Avakyan, M.R.; Knyazev, Y.V.; Volochaev, M.N.; Zyusman, V.S.; Panov, V.L.; Kadnikov, V.V.; Mardanov, A.V.; Ravin, N.V. Desulfovibrio desulfuricans AY5 Isolated from a Patient with Autism Spectrum Disorder Binds Iron in Low-Soluble Greigite and Pyrite. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ikkert, O.P.; Gerasimchuk, A.L.; Bukhtiyarova, P.A.; Tuovinen, O.H.; Karnachuk, O.V. Characterization of precipitates formed by H2S-producing, Cu-resistant Firmicute isolates of Tissierella from human gut and Desulfosporosinus from mine waste. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2013, 103, 1221–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mohandesan, E.; Fitak, R.R.; Corander, J.; Yadamsuren, A.; Chuluunbat, B.; Abdelhadi, O.; Raziq, A.; Nagy, P.; Stalder, G.; Walzer, C.; et al. Mitogenome Sequencing in the Genus Camelus Reveals Evidence for Purifying Selection and Long-term Divergence between Wild and Domestic Bactrian Camels. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Karnachuk, O.; Pimenov, N.V.; Yusupov, S.K.; Frank, Y.A.; Kaksonen, A.; Puhakka, J.A.; Ivanov, M.V.; Lindström, E.B.; Tuovinen, O.H. Sulfate Reduction Potential in Sediments in the Norilsk Mining Area, Northern Siberia. Geomicrobiol. J. 2005, 22, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Karnachuk, O.V.; Pimenov, N.V.; Iusupov, S.K.; Frank, I.A.; Puhakka, J.A.; Ivanov, M.V. Distribution, diversity, and activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria in the water column in Gek-Gel lake, Azerbaijan. Microbiology 2006, 75, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Widdel, F.; Bak, F. Gram Negative Mesophilic Sulfate Reducing Bacteria. In The Prokaryotes: A Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria: Ecophysiology, Isolation, Identification, Applications; Balows, A., Trüper, H.G., Dworkin, M., Harder, W., Schleifer, K.-H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1992; pp. 3352–3378. [Google Scholar]
  28. Karnachuk, O.V.; Frank, Y.A.; Lukina, A.P.; Kadnikov, V.V.; Beletsky, A.V.; Mardanov, A.V.; Ravin, N.V. Domestication of previously uncultivated Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator from a deep aquifer in Siberia sheds light on its physiology and evolution. ISME J. 2019, 13, 1947–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Magoč, T.; Salzberg, S.L. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Edgar, R.C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 2460–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rognes, T.; Flouri, T.; Nichols, B.; Quince, C.; Mahé, F. VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics. Peer J. 2016, 4, e2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bolyen, E.; Rideout, J.R.; Dillon, M.R.; Bokulich, N.A.; Abnet, C.C.; Al-Ghalith, G.A.; Alexander, H.; Alm, E.J.; Arumugam, M.; Asnicar, F.; et al. Reproducible, Interactive, Scalable and Extensible Microbiome Data Science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 852–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Marcos, C.; Paniagua, A.; Moreiras, D.B.; García-Granda, S.; Díaz, M.R. Villamaninite, a case of noncubic pyrite-type structure. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B Struct. Sci. 1996, 52, 899–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Huang, C.-B.; Xiao, L.; Xing, S.-C.; Chen, J.-Y.; Yang, Y.-W.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, W.; Liang, J.-B.; Mi, J.-D.; Wang, Y.; et al. The microbiota structure in the cecum of laying hens contributes to dissimilar H2S production. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Karnachuk, O.V.; Rusanov, I.I.; Panova, I.A.; Grigoriev, M.A.; Zyusman, V.S.; Latygolets, E.A.; Kadyrbaev, M.K.; Gruzdev, E.V.; Beletsky, A.V.; Mardanov, A.V.; et al. Microbial sulfate reduction by Desulfovibrio is an important source of hydrogen sulfide from a large swine finishing facility. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 10720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chun, J.; Oren, A.; Ventosa, A.; Christensen, H.; Arahal, D.R.; da Costa, M.S.; Rooney, A.P.; Yi, H.; Xu, X.-W.; De Meyer, S.; et al. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2018, 68, 461–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zellner, G.; Messner, P.; Kneifel, H.; Winter, J. Desulfovibrio simplex spec. nov., a new sulfate-reducing bacterium from a sour whey digester. Arch. Microbiol. 1989, 152, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wylensek, D.; Hitch, T.C.A.; Riedel, T.; Afrizal, A.; Kumar, N.; Wortmann, E.; Liu, T.; Devendran, S.; Lesker, T.R.; Hernández, S.B.; et al. A collection of bacterial isolates from the pig intestine reveals functional and taxonomic diversity. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lewis, D. The reduction of sulphate in the rumen of the sheep. Biochem. J. 1954, 56, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Spring, S.; Visser, M.; Lu, M.; Copeland, A.; Lapidus, A.; Lucas, S.; Cheng, J.-F.; Han, C.; Tapia, R.; Goodwin, L.A.; et al. Complete genome sequence of the sulfate-reducing firmicute Desulfotomaculum ruminis type strain (DLT). Stand. Genom. Sci. 2012, 7, 304–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ndongo, S.; Cadoret, F.; Dubourg, G.; Delerce, J.; Fournier, P.-E.; Raoult, D.; Lagier, J.-C. ‘Collinsella phocaeensis’ sp. nov., ‘Clostridium merdae’ sp. nov., ‘Sutterella massiliensis’ sp. nov., ‘Sutturella timonensis’ sp. nov., ‘Enorma phocaeensis’ sp. nov., ‘Mailhella massiliensis’ gen. nov., sp. nov., ‘Mordavella massiliensis’ gen. nov., sp. nov. and ‘Massiliprevotella massiliensis’ gen. nov., sp. nov., 9 new species isolated from fresh stool samples of healthy French patients. New Microbes New Infect. 2017, 17, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Karnachuk, O.V.; Lukina, A.P.; Kadnikov, V.V.; Sherbakova, V.A.; Beletsky, A.V.; Mardanov, A.V.; Ravin, N.V. Targeted isolation based on metagenome-assembled genomes reveals a phylogenetically distinct group of thermophilic spirochetes from deep biosphere. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 3585–3598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rickard, D. The microbiological formation of iron sulphides. Stockh. Contrib. Geol. 1969, 20, 49–66. [Google Scholar]
  44. Neal, A.L.; Techkarnjanaruk, S.; Dohnalkova, A.; McCready, D.; Peyton, B.M.; Geesey, G.G. Iron sulfides and sulfur species produced at hematite surfaces in the presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2001, 65, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gramp, J.P.; Bigham, J.M.; Jones, F.S.; Tuovinen, O.H. Formation of Fe-sulfides in cultures of sulfate-reducing bacteria. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 175, 1062–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Berg, J.S.; Duverger, A.; Cordier, L.; Laberty-Robert, C.; Guyot, F.; Miot, J. Rapid pyritization in the presence of a sulfur/sulfate-reducing bacterial consortium. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Karnachuk, O.V.; Sasaki, K.; Gerasimchuk, A.L.; Sukhanova, O.; Ivasenko, D.A.; Kaksonen, A.H.; Puhakka, J.A.; Tuovinen, O.H. Precipitation of Cu-Sulfides by Copper-Tolerant Desulfovibrio Isolates. Geomicrobiol. J. 2008, 25, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bukhtiyarova, P.A.; Antsiferov, D.V.; Brasseur, G.; Avakyan, M.R.; Frank, Y.A.; Ikkert, O.P.; Pimenov, N.V.; Tuovinen, O.H.; Karnachuk, O.V. Isolation, characterization, and genome insights into an anaerobic sulfidogenic Tissierella bacterium from Cu-bearing coins. Anaerobe 2019, 56, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Mansor, M.; Berti, D.; Hochella, M.F., Jr.; Murayama, M.; Xu, J. Phase, morphology, elemental composition, and formation mechanisms of biogenic and abiogenic Fe-Cu-sulfide nanoparticles: A comparative study on their occurrences under anoxic conditions. Am. Miner. 2019, 104, 703–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Behl, S.; Mehta, S.; Pandey, M.K. Abnormal Levels of Metal Micronutrients and Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Perspective Review. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2020, 13, 586209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cowper, M.; Rickard, D. Mechanism of chalcopyrite formation from iron monosulphides in aqueous solutions (<100 °C, pH 2–4.5). Chem. Geol. 1989, 78, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Faye, B.; Seboussi, R. Selenium in Camel—A Review. Nutrients 2009, 1, 30–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abdelrahman, M.M.; Alhidary, I.A.; Aljumaah, R.S.; Faye, B. Blood Trace Element Status in Camels: A Review. Animals 2022, 12, 2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Agatova, A.R.; Nepop, R.K.; Rudaya, N.A.; Khazina, I.V.; Zhdanova, A.N.; Bronnikova, M.A.; Uspenskaya, O.N.; Zazovskaya, E.P.; Ovchinnikov, I.Y.; Panov, V.S.; et al. Discovery of Upper Oligocene–Lower Miocene brown coal deposits (Kosh-Agach formation) in the Dzhazator River valley (Southeastern Russian Altai): Neotectonic and paleogeographical aspects. Dokl. Earth Sci. 2017, 475, 854–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Peck, E.F. Salt intake in relation to cutaneous necrosis and arthritis of one humped camels (Camelus dromedarius, L.) in British Somaliland. Vet. Rec. 1939, 51, 1355–1360. [Google Scholar]
  56. Karnachuk, O.; Kurochkina, S.; Tuovinen, O. Growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria with solid-phase electron acceptors. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2002, 58, 482–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ortega-Villamagua, E.; Gudiño-Gomezjurado, M.; Palma-Cando, A. Microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP) and its potential in bioconcrete: Microbiological and molecular concepts. Front. Mater. 2019, 6, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hoffmann, T.D.; Reeksting, B.J.; Gebhard, S. Bacteria-induced mineral precipitation: A mechanistic review. Microbiology 2021, 167, 001049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Microorganisms 11 00401 g001 550
Figure 1. X-ray diffraction patterns of fecal samples KV152, KV147, KV145, and KV136. Letter codes: Ch = chalcopyrite, CuFeS2; Vl = villamaninite, CuS2; Gy = gypsum, CaSO4; Cc = calcite, CaCO3. The diagnostic peaks for muscovite (♦), clinochlore (■), quartz (◊), and albite (+) are indicated. The vertical bar shows the scale of relative counts.
Figure 1. X-ray diffraction patterns of fecal samples KV152, KV147, KV145, and KV136. Letter codes: Ch = chalcopyrite, CuFeS2; Vl = villamaninite, CuS2; Gy = gypsum, CaSO4; Cc = calcite, CaCO3. The diagnostic peaks for muscovite (♦), clinochlore (■), quartz (◊), and albite (+) are indicated. The vertical bar shows the scale of relative counts.
Microorganisms 11 00401 g001
Microorganisms 11 00401 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Saline soil with camel feces, sampled for XRD analysis, and (B) X-ray diffraction pattern of the soil sample. Letter codes: Th = thenardite, Na2SO4; Me = melanterite, Fe+2SO4·7H2O. The diagnostic peaks for muscovite (■), clinochlore (●), calcite (□), quartz (◊), and halite (▼) are indicated. The vertical bar shows the scale of relative counts.
Figure 2. (A) Saline soil with camel feces, sampled for XRD analysis, and (B) X-ray diffraction pattern of the soil sample. Letter codes: Th = thenardite, Na2SO4; Me = melanterite, Fe+2SO4·7H2O. The diagnostic peaks for muscovite (■), clinochlore (●), calcite (□), quartz (◊), and halite (▼) are indicated. The vertical bar shows the scale of relative counts.
Microorganisms 11 00401 g002
Microorganisms 11 00401 g003 550
Figure 3. Microbial communities of camel feces at the phylum level and sulfate-reducing lineages (Desulfotomaculales and Desulfovibrionales). Relative abundances (% of the total 16S rRNA gene sequences, average of 55 samples) are shown after taxon names.
Figure 3. Microbial communities of camel feces at the phylum level and sulfate-reducing lineages (Desulfotomaculales and Desulfovibrionales). Relative abundances (% of the total 16S rRNA gene sequences, average of 55 samples) are shown after taxon names.
Microorganisms 11 00401 g003
Microorganisms 11 00401 g004 550
Figure 4. The sulfate reduction rate (SRR) measured in samples KV104, KV147, and KV 149. The vertical bars show the standard deviation.
Figure 4. The sulfate reduction rate (SRR) measured in samples KV104, KV147, and KV 149. The vertical bars show the standard deviation.
Microorganisms 11 00401 g004
Microorganisms 11 00401 g005 550
Figure 5. 16S rRNA gene-based neighbor-joining tree showing the phylogenetic position of strains 1211 and 1198. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches. The evolutionary distances were computed using the maximum composite likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). There were a total of 1658 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA11.
Figure 5. 16S rRNA gene-based neighbor-joining tree showing the phylogenetic position of strains 1211 and 1198. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches. The evolutionary distances were computed using the maximum composite likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). There were a total of 1658 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA11.
Microorganisms 11 00401 g005
Microorganisms 11 00401 g006 550
Figure 6. 16S rRNA gene-based neighbor-joining tree showing the phylogenetic position of strains 1211 and 1198. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches. The evolutionary distances were computed using the maximum composite likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). There were a total of 1590 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA11.
Figure 6. 16S rRNA gene-based neighbor-joining tree showing the phylogenetic position of strains 1211 and 1198. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches. The evolutionary distances were computed using the maximum composite likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). There were a total of 1590 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA11.
Microorganisms 11 00401 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karnachuk, O.V.; Panova, I.A.; Panov, V.L.; Ikkert, O.P.; Kadnikov, V.V.; Rusanov, I.I.; Avakyan, M.R.; Glukhova, L.B.; Lukina, A.P.; Rakitin, A.V.; et al. Active Sulfate-Reducing Bacterial Community in the Camel Gut. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020401

AMA Style

Karnachuk OV, Panova IA, Panov VL, Ikkert OP, Kadnikov VV, Rusanov II, Avakyan MR, Glukhova LB, Lukina AP, Rakitin AV, et al. Active Sulfate-Reducing Bacterial Community in the Camel Gut. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(2):401. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020401

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karnachuk, Olga V., Inna A. Panova, Vasilii L. Panov, Olga P. Ikkert, Vitaly V. Kadnikov, Igor I. Rusanov, Marat R. Avakyan, Lubov B. Glukhova, Anastasia P. Lukina, Anatolii V. Rakitin, and et al. 2023. "Active Sulfate-Reducing Bacterial Community in the Camel Gut" Microorganisms 11, no. 2: 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020401

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