Skip to main content
Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts logoLink to Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts
. 2026 Mar 26;19:38. doi: 10.1186/s13068-026-02759-1

Oxygen competition induces chlorosis in thermoacidophilic methanotroph–microalgae cocultures

Carlos Cartin-Caballero 1,2,5, Christophe Collet 2, Daniel Gapes 3, Peter A Gostomski 1, Matthew B Stott 4, Carlo R Carere 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13147883  PMID: 41888821

Abstract

Methanotroph–microalgae cocultures offer a promising bioprocess platform for methane (CH₄) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) valorisation and have been proposed for sustainable single-cell protein (SCP) production. In coculture, the thermoacidophilic methanotroph Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 can benefit from oxygen supplied by the extremophilic microalga Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 under low-O₂ conditions, enhancing growth and methane oxidation. However, oxygen availability is a critical factor that can rapidly become limiting and is dependent on the relative abundance of each coculture partner. Here, we investigated how the initial Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria biomass ratio influences coculture dynamics and overall carbon assimilation. At low initial ratios (< 0.18 gDW L⁻1: gDW L⁻1), CH₄-fed cocultures achieved 17–28% greater net carbon fixation than CH₄-free controls (p < 0.05), indicating effective methanotroph–microalgae synergy via oxygen exchange. In contrast, ratios ≥ 0.23 led to significant growth inhibition (66–100% reduction, p < 0.001) and reduced net carbon fixation (44–62% reduction, p < 0.001). These cocultures exhibited chlorosis and excreted coproporphyrin III, symptoms that were fully reversible upon oxygen replenishment. Collectively, these findings reveal that Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 requires a minimum oxygen threshold for photosystem pigment biosynthesis, while the high O₂ affinity of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 can result in oxygen limitation at elevated methanotroph abundance. Consequently, interactions that are mutually beneficial at low methanotroph densities become inhibitory due to oxygen competition. This work highlights the central role of O₂ partitioning in extremophile cocultures and provides a mechanistic basis for optimising methane-fed photobioreactors relevant to SCP production and carbon valorisation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13068-026-02759-1.

Keywords: Microalgae, Methanotroph, Coculture, Bioprocess, Extremophile, Chlorosis, Coproporphyrin

Introduction

Methane (CH₄) is the second most significant greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide (CO2), with a far greater short-term warming potential [1]. While CO2 has been the primary focus of global warming abatement strategies, CH4 emission control is an important parallel consideration [2]. Consequently, the valorisation of CH4 and CO2 emissions via methanotroph–photoautotroph cocultures has attracted attention [3, 4]. Methanotroph–photoautotroph cocultures can produce valuable products, including biodiesel [5], bioplastics [6], and single-cell proteins [7], as well as recover nutrients from industrial wastewater [4, 7, 8]. Extremophilic microorganisms, including methanotrophs (e.g., Methylacidiphilum spp.) [9] and microalgae (e.g., Galdieria spp.) [10], thrive in geothermal environments which approximate the physicochemical characteristics of many industrial processes (e.g., hot temperature flue gases, high CO2, and acidic pH) [11, 12]. Consequently, the physiological characteristics of these extremophiles may be advantageous to cocultures at industrial scales.

One of the key interactions between methanotrophs and photoautotrophs (e.g., microalgae) in coculture involves interspecies oxygen (O2) transfer, wherein, oxygenic photosynthesis supplies O2 to methanotrophs for CH4 oxidation which, in turn, produce CO2 for photoautotrophic carbon assimilation [13]. Methanotrophs can therefore benefit from coculture with photoautotrophs when under O2 limitation. Several studies, with differing methanotroph–photoautotroph pairs, have achieved sustained CH4 oxidation without O2 supplementation; including cocultures of the microalga Scenedesmus sp. with the methanotroph Methylocystis parvus [6], the cyanobacterium Synechococcus PCC 7002 with the methanotroph Methylomicrobium alcaliphilum 20z [14], the microalga Chlorella sorokiniana with the methanotroph Methylococcus capsulatus [7], and the methanotroph Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 with the microalga Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 [15].

Inoculum proportion is a critical determinant of coculture performance [16]. For example, Jeong et al. [17] reported that Sphingopyxis sp. NM1 enhanced both growth and CH4 oxidation rates of Methylocystis sp. M6 when the coculture was initiated at a 1:9 (M6:NM1) volumetric ratio. This stimulatory effect disappeared when the ratios were reversed (9:1) or equalised (1:1). Likewise, a biomass concentration-dependent effect on CH₄ oxidation in mixed cultures of Methylocystis sp. M6 and the methylotrophic denitrifier Hyphomicrobium sp. NM3 was observed [18]. Under O2 limitation, increased photoautotroph abundance in methanotroph–photoautotroph cocultures enhanced growth rates of slow-growing photoautotroph partners by increasing the volumetric rate of O2 production [13, 19]. This O2 dependence was demonstrated for Methylomicrobium buryatense cocultured with Arthrospira platensis, where external O2 supplementation altered the final photoautotroph:methanotroph ratio [19]. Conversely, in excess O2, a greater photoautotroph proportion does not necessarily benefit the methanotroph. For instance, in cocultures of Methylomicrobium alcaliphilum 20ZR with Synechococcus sp. PCC7002, proportional abundance had no effect on growth rate, as CH₄ mass transfer—not O₂ availability—was the limiting factor [13].

However, not all methanotroph–phototroph interactions are beneficial (e.g., mutualism, commensalism). Under excess O₂, Scenedesmus obtusiusculus can inhibit CH₄ oxidation in a methanotroph consortium by alkalising the medium beyond the bacterial pH optimum [20]. Photoautotrophs can also be disadvantaged in coculture. Fast-growing methanotrophs may outcompete them via shading or nutrient competition [21], as seen with Chlorella sorokiniana in coculture with Methylococcus capsulatus [7]. Furthermore, some Galdieria spp. excrete coproporphyrin III under low-O₂ during heterotrophic or mixotrophic growth, disrupting chlorophyll and phycobiliprotein synthesis and causing chlorosis [22–24]. In wastewater-derived cocultures, this O₂ limitation—exacerbated by bacterial respiration—can further reduce growth and biomass yields [24].

In batch coculture with Galdieria sp. RTK37.1, the thermoacidophilic methanotroph Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 benefits from interspecies O₂ transfer under low-oxygen conditions [15]. Despite the industrial potential of extremophilic consortia, the dynamics of photoautotroph–methanotroph interactions remain poorly understood. Here, we investigate how the initial Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria biomass ratio influences coculture performance. We show that, under O₂ limitation, dilute Methylacidiphilum populations benefit from Galdieria’s oxygenic activity, enhancing CH₄ oxidation and carbon fixation. However, at greater methanotroph proportional abundances, the high O2 affinity of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 depletes available oxygen, disrupting pigment biosynthesis in Galdieria sp. RTK37.1, triggering chlorosis, and ultimately suppressing coculture growth. These findings provide new insight into O2-driven trade-offs in extremophile cocultures, offering practical guidelines for designing and optimising CH₄/CO₂ co-utilisation systems relevant to single-cell protein production and other carbon-valorisation bioprocesses.

Materials and methods

Stock culture maintenance

A modified V4 medium [25] was used for all cultivation experiments. Stock cultures of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 and Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 were routinely maintained as previously described [15, 26]. Briefly, Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 was maintained in chemostat culture using a 1-L bioreactor (BioFlo 110; New Brunswick Scientific, United States) with a 600 mL working volume and 0.0069 h−1 dilution rate. A gas mixture (69% CO2, 1.0% CH4, 3.1% O2, balance N2, all v/v) was continuously supplied at 20 mL min−1. Temperature was maintained at 45 °C, agitation at 800 rpm, and pH ~ 2.5. Under these conditions, typical steady-state OD600 values were 1.2 and outlet gas concentrations were 72% CO2, 0.13% CH4, 1.5% O2, with the remaining attributed to N2. For all experiments, Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 was aseptically harvested directly from the reactor and diluted with sterile V4 medium to the desired starting concentration. For Galdieria sp. RTK37.1, 300 mL stocks were repeatedly grown in 1-L Duran® Pressure Plus bottles sealed with bromobutyl rubber stoppers. At the beginning of each batch growth cycle, Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 cultures were diluted to OD600 1.0 with sterile V4 medium, and the bottle headspaces were then subjected to vacuum for 3 min, and re-pressurised to 35 kPa (gauge) with an 80% CO2 and 20% N2 gas mixture (v/v). The bottles were then incubated on a shaking incubator (WiseCube WIS-10, Wisd Laboratory Instruments, Germany) equipped with warm white LED strips, at 45 °C, 150 rpm, and light intensity of 40 μmol m−2 s−1 measured at the bottles’ wall with a LI-250A Light Meter (LI-COR, Nebraska, United States). Growth was stopped at OD600 6.0 and the cycle started anew. For all experiments, Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 was aseptically harvested at an OD600 4.0 and diluted with sterile V4 medium to the desired starting concentration. Unless stated otherwise, all chemicals and reagents were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Germany) and all gases were sourced from BOC (Australia).

Variable mass ratio coculture experiments

Cocultures were conducted with varying initial Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria mass ratios to evaluate their influence on coculture performance (e.g., growth rate, biomass productivity, O2 production rate, CH4 oxidation rate). The initial biomass ratios tested (methanotroph:microalga, expressed as gDW L⁻1:gDW L⁻1) were 0, 0.08, 0.15, 0.18, 0.23, 0.30, and 1.33. For these experiments, an initial Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 concentration (0.215 gDW L−1, OD600: 0.88 A.U.) was consistently used with varying initial Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 concentrations (ranging between 0.0 and 0.52 gDW L−1, OD600: 0.0 to 0.44). Coculture suspensions (40 mL) were prepared by aseptically diluting the microbial stocks with sterile V4 medium into 160-mL serum bottles. Each serum bottle was sealed with a butyl rubber stopper and an aluminium crimp, and then, to displace O2 in the headspace, was flushed for 3 min with an 80/20 CO2/N2 (v/v) gas mixture and pressurized to 69 kPa (gauge). For each of the varying mass ratios, six serum bottles were prepared, into which half received 20 mL 100% CH4 to enable growth of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1. The remaining serum bottles instead received N2 (20 mL). These preparations resulted in initial headspace concentrations of approximately 0.5% O2, 13.0% CH4, 70% CO2, balance N2 (all v/v) for the CH4 containing cocultures, and 0.5% O2, 70% CO2, balance N2 (all v/v) for the non-CH4 containing cocultures.

Serum bottle cocultures were then cultivated for 6 days in a shaking incubator (WiseCube WIS-10, Wisd Laboratory Instruments, Germany) at 45 °C, 150 rpm, and a light intensity of 20 μmolphotons m−2 s−1. Each day, 2 mL liquid samples were collected from each bottle and analysed for total OD600, pigment fluorescence and absorption spectra. At the end of the experiment, final headspace pressures were measured, with liquid and gas samples collected for gas concentration analysis, and final biomass concentration determinations.

Chlorosis coculture recovery experiments

To investigate the impact of O2 limitation on coproporphyrin formation, pigment loss (e.g., phycocyanin, chlorophyll) and the reversibility of chlorosis within Galdieria sp. RTK37.1, a series of batch cocultures were prepared with varying initial gas concentrations. For all cocultures, 250 mL of sterile V4 medium was added to 1-L Duran® Pressure Plus bottles sealed with bromobutyl rubber stoppers and inoculated to the desired initial concentrations with the appropriate microbial stocks. To distinguish the effects of O₂ limitation from those of Methylacidiphilum growth, “replenishment” cocultures were established with daily CH4, CO2, and O2 supplementation. Cultures were inoculated with Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 (OD₆₀₀ = 0.3) and Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 (OD600 = 1.0), sealed, and injected with 100 mL CO2 and 60 mL CH4. After daily sampling, bottles were opened in a Thermo HeraSafe HS12 Laminar Flow cabinet (Thermo Scientific, United States), equilibrated for 30 min, and re-gassed to initial concentrations (Table S1). All bottles were cultivated in triplicate as described above (i.e. 45 °C, 150 rpm, 20 μmolphotons m−2 s−1).

To evaluate whether Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 could recover from chlorosis upon the cessation of Methylacidiphilum growth, a series of cocultures were prepared where CH4 was first added and then removed once pigment loss and coproporphyrin formation was observed. Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 was inoculated to a starting OD600 of 0.35 and Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 to an OD600 of 0.80. Coculture headspaces were prepared by subjecting the bottles to 3 cycles of vacuum for 3 min and then re-pressurising to 35 kPa (gauge) with 80/20 CO2/N2 (v/v). Following this, headspace gas was equilibrated to atmospheric pressure by expanding against a syringe, and then 120 mL of CH4 was injected. Following 4 days of incubation, all bottles were opened inside a Thermo HeraSafe HS12 Laminar Flow cabinet (Thermo Scientific, United States), and left to equalise for 30 min. 50 mL of broth was then harvested from each bottle, centrifuged at 12,000 rpm on a 5810R Benchtop Centrifuge (Eppendorf, Germany) for 15 min, and the supernatants were pooled together and stored at −20 °C until required for coproporphyrin analysis. 50 mL of sterile V4 medium was then added to each bottle (to maintain a 250 mL volume), bottles were re-sealed and new headspace gas compositions were prepared (Table S1) before further incubation.

A final set of cocultures, prepared without initial CH₄, served as controls to assess Galdieria growth in the absence of Methylacidiphilum activity. Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 and Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 were inoculated at OD600 values of 0.40 and 0.80, respectively. Headspaces were prepared as described (Table S1) and pressurised to 138 kPa (gauge) with an 80/20 CO2/N2 gas mixture (v/v).

For all conditions, 2 mL liquid and 20 mL gas samples were collected daily for analysis. Headspace pressure was measured with an Almelmo 5470 data logger (Ahlborn, Germany) equipped with a pressure sensor (Gems Sensors & Controls, England) before and after all headspace sampling to account for gas loss. Cultures were terminated when any replicate exceeded an OD600 of 3.5 to prevent nitrogen limitation or when the phycocyanin response decreased to zero, indicating the absence of detectable phycobiliprotein signal.

Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) analysis

To confirm the identity of coproporphyrin in culture supernatants, samples were subjected to LC–MS analysis. For these measurements, 500-µL aliquots of aqueous centrifuged supernatant were diluted 1:1 in isopropanol (IPA) and filtered through a 0.22-µm PTFE syringe filter. Samples were then analysed on an Agilent UPLC-QTOF spectrometer equipped with an Agilent 1290 high speed binary pump, Agilent 1290 multi-sampler, Agilent 1290 multi-column thermostat, an Agilent 1260 diode array detector, and a Dual AJS ESI source in positive ion mode. The LC method used an Agilent Zorbax Eclipse Plus 50 × 2.1 mm, 1.8 µm column, 35 °C temperature, 20 min run time, positive MS polarity, 10 µL injection volume, 0.3 mL min−1 flow rate. An acetonitrile/water gradient (with 0.1% formic acid) was used. The gradient started at 2% (v/v) acetonitrile (with 0.1% (v/v) formic acid, balance H2O) for 15 min, then increased to 100% acetonitrile (with 0.1% (v/v) formic acid) for 5 min. A 1:1 IPA in water (LCMS grade) solution was used as a blank. Data were analysed using Agilent MassHunter Qualitative analysis 10.0 software. Base Peak Chromatograms (BPC) were generated, mass spectra were extracted for the relevant peaks and the mass spectrum background (from the blank) was subtracted. An Extracted Ion Chromatogram (EIC) for the expected ions for coproporphyrin III ([M + H]+ = 655.2762 and [M + Na]+ = 677.2582) was generated in positive ion mode. Formulas for the ions in the peak at retention time 7.46 min were generated to confirm whether there was a good match for coproporphyrin III.

Analytical procedures

Optical density at 600 nm was routinely measured using an Ultrospec 10 cell density meter (Amersham Bioscience, United Kingdom). To differentiate the abundance of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 and Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 in cocultures, a method utilising differential sedimentation, optical density and fluorescence (DSOF) was used as previously described [27].

Pigment content in coculture was tracked by autofluorescence. For these measurements, 200 μL samples were transferred into black, flat-bottom (chimney well) 96-well microplates (Greiner Bio-One, Austria). Fluorescence was measured at 670 nm emission (590 nm excitation) for phycocyanin and at 670 nm emission (485 nm excitation) for chlorophyll using a Varioskan Lux microplate reader (Thermo Scientific, United States) [28]. For absorption spectra, 200 μL samples were transferred into clear 96-well microplates (Greiner Bio-One, Austria), and optical density was measured between 300 and 800 nm (in 1 nm increments) using the same microplate reader. To assess coproporphyrin variation, the average of the optical density values at 390 nm and 410 nm was subtracted from the 400 nm coproporphyrin peak. Negative values calculated in this fashion were considered zero.

Biomass concentrations were measured gravimetrically. For these, 15 mL aliquots were vacuum-filtered onto pre-weighed 0.22 µm nylon membrane filters (MicroScience, Australia). Filters were then washed three times by vacuum-filtering 10 mL of deionized water, dried for 12 h at 95 °C, weighed, and the filtered biomass weight was calculated by difference.

Gas samples (CO2, CH4, N2, and O2) were analysed using an Agilent 490 Micro GC equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (Agilent Technologies, United States), a Molecular Sieve 5A with a heated injector (50 °C, back-flush at 5.10 s, column at 90 °C, 150 kPa), a PoraPak Q column with a heated injector (50 °C, no back-flush, column at 70 °C, 50 kPa) and a 5CB column with a heated injector (50 °C, no back-flush, column at 80 °C, 150 kPa).

All statistical analyses were performed using Prism Graphpad v9.4.1. Unless stated otherwise, two-factor ANOVA (α = 0.05) tests were used, with the Sidak method for multiple mean comparisons between columns (simple effects within rows) or rows (simple effects within columns). Growth rates (μ) were calculated by fitting the appropriate biomass concentration data to an exponential growth function within Prism Graphpad v9.4.1.

Results and discussion

Biomass productivity at low initial oxygen concentration is sensitive to initial mass ratio in batch coculture

The relative proportion of member species in methanotroph:photoautotroph cocultures can significantly influence bioprocess performance [16], however, the impact of this parameter on thermoacidophilic cocultures is unknown. Therefore, to evaluate the influence of Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria mass ratios on coculture performance, a series of batch coculture experiments was performed with varying initial biomass ratios.

In CH4-supplemented cocultures, growth significantly decreased with increasing Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria mass ratios. Cocultures with mass ratios ≤ 0.18:1 displayed a modest slowing of growth rate (8% decrease, p < 0.01). However, increasing the initial Methylacidiphilum concentration beyond 0.18:1, resulted in significant growth inhibition (p < 0.001), with no growth observed at a Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria mass ratio of 1.33:1. In contrast, only small changes to growth were observed in cocultures without CH4-supplementation. Expectedly, Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 could not grow in cocultures without CH4 supplementation. Thus, any change to OD observed in the absence of CH4 was entirely attributed to Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 (Fig. 1a). Nevertheless, a significant 9% decrease (p < 0.005) in growth rate, with increasing Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 proportional abundance, was attributed to a shading effect. Previous reports indicate cell-mediated shading in coculture negatively impacts photoautotroph growth in cocultures with methanotrophs [19]. This effect is further evidenced when comparing rates of biomass productivity: a maximum productivity of 250 (± 3) mgDW L−1 h−1 was obtained at an initial 0.08:1 (gDW L−1 basis) Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria ratio, while the minimum productivity of 188 (± 4) mgDW L−1 h−1 was obtained when Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 was most abundant (Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Effect of the initial Methylacidiphilum RTK17.1 to Galdieria RTK37.1 concentration ratio on coculture growth rates (μ), for cultures with and without (w/o) CH4 supplementation into the headspace. a) Average growth rate was calculated over the entire cultivation period (6 days) using the initial and final biomass concentrations. For the cocultures without CH4 supplementation, Methylacidiphilum concentration was subtracted to the initial and final concentrations, as it did not contribute to biomass growth. b) Biomass productivity. Residual oxygen at the start of cultures ranged from 0.1 to 2.4% (v/v). Cultures were grown in 160-mL serum bottles in a shaking incubator at 45 °C, 110 rpm, and 20 μmolphotons m−2 s−1 warm white (LED) illumination measured at the bottle wall. Error bars represent one standard deviation (n = 3) of biological triplicates

CH4 availability, for initial mass ratios ≥ 0.23:1 (Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria), significantly impacted coculture biomass productivity due to the activity of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 (p < 0.005, Fig. 2). These decreased productivities contrast with batch cocultures involving different methanotroph/photoautotroph pairs (Methylomicrobium alcaliphilum 20ZR/Synechococcus sp. PCC7002; Methylococcus capsulatus/Chlorella sorokiniana) with varying biomass ratios [13]. For M. capsulatus/C. sorokiniana cocultures, greater proportions of microalgae tended to increase coculture growth rates, as the comparatively slow-growing C. sorokiniana produced limited O2 (via photosynthesis) and hence constrained methanotroph growth. This is similar to the increased growth and CH4 oxidation rates previously reported for Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 when grown in coculture with Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 [15]; and hence was expected in these ratio experiments. For M. alcaliphilum/Synechococcus cocultures, using a greater cyanobacterial concentration did not impact coculture growth, as the cyanobacterium grew much faster than the methanotroph, which was thus limited by CH4 mass transfer rather than O2 availability [19].

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Effect of the initial Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 to Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 mass ratio on net production and consumption rates, for cocultures with and without supplemental CH4. The a) net CO2 consumption rate, b) net CH4 consumption rate, c) net carbon (C) fixation rate and d) net oxygen (O2) production rates are shown. All rates were calculated over the entire culture period (6 days) using the initial and final gas concentrations, pressures and temperatures. Cocultures were grown in 160-mL serum bottles in a shaking incubator at 45 °C, 110 rpm, and 20 μmolphotons m−2 s−1 warm white (LED) illumination measured at the bottle wall. Error bars represent one standard deviation (n = 3) of biological triplicates

In addition to decreased biomass productivity, all cocultures grown with CH4 at an initial Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria mass ratio ≥ 0.23:1 developed a distinct yellow colouration (Figure S1). In microalgae, N-starvation is known to trigger a similar colour change, known as ‘chlorosis’, which is caused by the loss of chlorophylls and phycobiliproteins [29]. Chlorosis due to N-starvation is well documented in Galdieria spp. [30], with the loss of pigments often detrimental to photoautotrophic growth [29]. In this study, excess ammonium was supplied to cocultures, so the authors concluded that the observed chlorosis was not due to N-limitation. Alternatively, the reduced carbon metabolites excreted by methanotrophs can impact microalgae pigmentation as cells switch from autotrophic to mixotrophic growth [5]. Although Galdieria spp. are known to grow mixotrophically [24, 26, 31], growth rates are typically faster than for autotrophic growth [32], so a switch to mixotrophic growth seems unlikely (Fig. 1a). Chlorotic cocultures exhibited significantly slower net CO2 consumption and net carbon fixation rates (p < 0.001, Fig. 2) indicating decreased microalgae activity. Interestingly, CH4 oxidation rates were maximal (0.124 ± 0.001 mmolCH4 L−1 h−1) at a Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria ratio of 0.15:1. At this ratio, CH4 was completely removed, so it is possible faster consumption rates would have been observed with supplemental addition of CH4. However, further increasing the Methylacidiphilum proportion in cocultures tended to diminish the amount of CH4 removed.

The observed decrease in CH₄ consumption rate was attributed to limited O₂ availability (Fig. 2). Even at the highest Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria ratios, some CH₄ oxidation occurred (0.062 ± 0.016 mmol CH4 L⁻1 h⁻1), indicating that Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 initially produced O2. However, this O2 was rapidly consumed by Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1, creating an O2 limitation. Supporting this, OD600 increased only during the first 24 h in CH4-containing cocultures with ratios > 0.18:1 (Figure S2). The yellow pigmentation observed 1–2 days later is consistent with chlorosis and cessation of oxygenic activity. Thus, the CH4 oxidation benefit Galdieria provides to Methylacidiphilum under low-O2 conditions depends strongly on their relative abundances. In this study, ratios ≤ 0.15:1 supported greater carbon fixation, whereas ratios ≥ 0.23:1 impaired Galdieria activity, reducing coculture growth, CO2 fixation, and CH₄ oxidation. Similar O2-driven shifts have been reported in other cocultures, such as M. bryophila with S. obliquus [5], where low O2 favoured autotrophic algal growth and CH₄ oxidation to CO2, but high O2-promoted heterotrophic algal growth and methanotroph release of organic metabolites instead of CO2.

Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 induces O2 limitation and subsequent chlorosis in Galdieria sp. RTK37.1

To further investigate the pigment content (e.g., chlorophyll, phycocyanin) of Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 cells, cocultures were assessed spectrophotometrically. Within cocultures ≤ 0.18:1 Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria, chlorophyll and phycocyanin profiles were consistent with normal batch photoautotrophic growth (Fig. 3). In contrast, CH4-containing cocultures at ratios ≥ 0.23:1 showed decreases in chlorophyll and phycocyanin content in Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 as the coculture progressed. Chlorosis was not observed in cocultures with non-growing Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 (in the absence of CH4) or in high-density cocultures that received daily gas replenishment (Fig. 4). Concurrent with pigment loss, analysis revealed the appearance of a peak at 400 nm consistent with the presence of coproporphyrin (Figure S3a inset) [33]. Subsequent LC–MS analysis confirmed the identity of coproporphyrin III in culture supernatants.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Temporal profiles for a) chlorophyll (670 nm emission, 485 nm excitation), b) phycocyanin (670 nm emission, 590 nm excitation), and c) coproporphyrin within CH4-containing cocultures with varying initial Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria mass ratios. Coproporphyrin peak absorbance was measured by subtracting the average of the optical densities at 390 nm and 410 nm from the 400 nm peak. Negative values calculated in this fashion were equated to 0 A.U. Closed circles represent cocultures with initial Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria ratios ≤ 0.18 (non-coproporphyrin producing), while open circles represent cocultures with initial mass ratios ≥ 0.23 (coproporphyrin producing). Cultures were grown in 160-mL serum bottles in a shaking incubator at 45 °C, 110 rpm, and 20 μmolphotons m−2 s−1 warm white (LED) illumination measured at the bottle wall. Error bars represent one standard deviation of biological triplicates (n = 3)

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Growth and pigmentation profiles of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 and Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 cocultures with different headspace concentrations. a), d) Cocultures with no added CH4 (to suppress methanotroph growth). b), e) Cocultures with daily replenishment of CH4, CO2, and O2 to initial concentrations. c), f) Cocultures with no daily replenishment of O2. Experiments were terminated when the coculture optical density (OD600) reached approximately 3.5, to avoid the onset of nitrogen limitation, or when the phycocyanin response decreased to zero, indicating the absence of detectable phycobiliprotein signal. Methanotroph and microalgae concentrations were calculated using the DSOF method. All cultures were cultivated at 45 °C, 150 rpm, and 40 μmolphotons m−2 s−1 warm white (LED) illumination in 1-L gas-tight bottles on a shaking incubator. Cultures were grown in triplicate; error bars represent one standard deviation (n = 3) of biological triplicates

Coproporphyrin is an intermediate formed during the biosynthesis of both phycocyanin and chlorophyll [34]. During normal pigment biosynthesis, the precursor coproporphyrinogen III is oxidised by coproporphyrinogen III oxidase (HemF, E.C. 1.3.3.3), into protoporphyrinogen IX [22, 35]. HemF activity is O2-dependent, so during periods of O2 limitation coproporphyrinogen III accumulates, and is eventually excreted, where it is oxidised into coproporphyrin III [22]. As a consequence, pigment biosynthesis is arrested. In Galdieria sulphuraria, suppression of phycobiliprotein synthesis during N-starvation can induce chlorosis and lead to complete phycocyanin degradation within 3–4 days [30]. While O2 limitation seems counterintuitive for a photoautotroph, and there are no reports of coproporphyrin formation in autotrophically growing Galdieria spp., coproporphyrin formation is known to occur under O2 limiting conditions in both heterotrophic and mixotrophic Galdieria spp. cultures [22]. In Methylacidiphilum–Galdieria cocultures, O2 limitation was likely induced by a combination of high relative abundance of methanotroph, the relatively fast O2 consumption rates for this strain (2.33 ± 0.19 mmol gDW−1 h−1 O2 consumption for Methylacidiphilum vs. 0.966 ± 0.152 mmol gDW−1 h−1 O2 production for Galdieria sp. RTK37.1) [15], and an exceptionally strong O2 affinity (Ks = 0.7 mM) characteristic of verrucomicrobial methanotrophs [36].

Therefore, at Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria mass ratios ≥ 0.23, the methanotroph rapidly depleted available O₂, triggering coproporphyrin excretion by Galdieria. This diversion of coproporphyrinogen III away from pigment synthesis halted phycocyanin production, leading to its degradation by day 2, followed by progressive chlorophyll loss (Fig. 3). The resulting chlorosis impaired photosynthesis and Galdieria growth, further reducing O₂ availability and ultimately limiting methanotrophic activity.

O2-limiting chlorosis is reversible in Galdieria sp. RTK37.1

To assess whether Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 could recover from pigment loss, cocultures were established in which CH₄ was removed after the onset of chlorosis and coproporphyrin accumulation (Figs. 5, 6, S4). Following CH₄ removal, a pigment recovery phase ensued without cell growth (days 4–7; Figure S4). During the first 2 days of the recovery period, cultures appeared white (Fig. 6) as chlorophyll levels continued to decline (Fig. 5). Concurrent with the cessation of Methylacidiphilum growth, coproporphyrin concentrations decreased rapidly—a pattern not attributable to passive degradation, as concentrations remained stable for up to 15 days in previous O₂-limited mixotrophic G. sulphuraria cultures [22]. This suggests that, as O₂ accumulated in the medium, Galdieria reabsorbed extracellular coproporphyrin for pigment biosynthesis. Supporting this, the decline in coproporphyrin coincided with a 1% decrease in headspace O₂ and was followed by phycocyanin recovery, consistent with the O₂ dependence of HemF catalysis [22]. Analogous mechanisms have been reported in other microorganisms. Paracoccus denitrificans secretes coproporphyrin III under copper limitation, then reclaims the porphyrin–metal complex via TonB-dependent transporters [37]. Likewise, G. sulphuraria can recover dissolved lanthanide and Cu2⁺ ions, potentially through porphyrin-mediated complexation [24, 38–40]. Since metal recovery in these cases occurred only under low-O₂ conditions, they align with a model in which Galdieria excretes coproporphyrin to sequester metals, then reabsorbs it for intracellular use when O₂ becomes available. By day eight, coproporphyrin was no longer detectable, chlorophyll levels had recovered, and O₂ began accumulating in the headspace. Thereafter, Galdieria resumed growth, with both pigment content and O₂ concentration increasing as expected.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Chlorosis recovery of Galdieria sp. RTK37.1. Pigments (e.g., chlorophyll, phycocyanin), coproporphyrin, and O2 profile in cocultures of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 and Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 with CH4 initially added and later removed (Day 4). Headspaces were subjected to vacuum, opened, and re-gassed on day 4 to remove CH4 (1.38% v/v O2, 60.83% v/v CO2, CH4 undetectable, final headspace concentration). No O2 was added at any point. Grey shading indicates the period where CH4 was present. Coproporphyrin peak absorbance was measured by subtracting the average of the optical densities at 390 nm and 410 nm from the 400 nm coproporphyrin peak. Negative values calculated in this fashion were considered zero. Cocultures were incubated in 250 mL V4 media at 45 °C, with shaking (150 rpm), and 40 μmolphotons m−2 s−1 light intensity in 1-L gas-tight bottles. Average values are shown with error bars representing one standard deviation (n = 3) of biological triplicates

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Colour development in batch cocultures of Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 and Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 with CH4 initially added and later removed. Headspaces were subjected to vacuum, opened, and re-gassed on day 4 to remove CH4 (1.38% v/v O2, 60.83% v/v CO2, CH4 undetectable, final headspace concentration). No O2 was added at any point. Cocultures were incubated in 250 mL V4 media at 45 °C, pH 2.5, with 150 rpm agitation, and 40 μmol m−2 s−1 light intensity in 1-L gas-tight bottles. Cultures were grown in biological triplicate, and photographs of the same replicate are shown

Finally, the potential impact of coproporphyrin on Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 growth remains unclear. In cocultures, coproporphyrin can act as either a growth promoter or an inhibitor [33, 41], with its excretion proposed as a means of suppressing competitors through competitive nutrient sequestration. Galdieria sulphuraria can recover > 90% of Cu2⁺ and lanthanide ions from solution at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm [40], potentially via coproporphyrin-mediated chelation—consistent with the role of coproporphyrin in copper acquisition by Paracoccus denitrificans [37]. For verrucomicrobial methanotrophs, lanthanides are essential cofactors for XoxF-type methanol dehydrogenases [42], and Cu2⁺ is required for pMMO synthesis and activity [43]. It is therefore plausible that coproporphyrin excreted by Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 could chelate these metals, potentially restricting their availability and inhibiting methanotroph growth. However, this hypothesis requires further investigation.

Conclusions

The interaction between Galdieria sp. RTK37.1 and Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 in batch coculture is governed by O₂ availability and the relative abundance of each partner. Under O₂ limitation and low methanotroph density, Methylacidiphilum benefits from Galdieria’s oxygenic activity, enhancing CH₄ oxidation. However, at greater methanotroph abundances, its strong O₂ affinity deprives Galdieria of oxygen, disrupting pigment biosynthesis, triggering coproporphyrin III excretion, and causing chlorosis. Chlorosis halts photosynthesis, further reducing pigment production and slowing coculture growth. In this study, this shift from commensalism to antagonism occurred at Methylacidiphilum:Galdieria ratios ≥ 0.23:1, although the exact threshold likely depends on external O₂ and CH₄ availability, as well as light intensity. Coproporphyrin excretion and chlorosis were absent when O₂ was replenished and were reversible when O₂ was allowed to accumulate, indicating that Galdieria requires a minimum dissolved O₂ concentration for sustained pigment synthesis. This is the first report of coproporphyrin excretion by Galdieria during photoautotrophic growth, and the first evidence of it being directly induced by another microorganism in coculture. Given its known metal-chelating properties, coproporphyrin III could influence the growth of both partners, though this requires further study. Chemostat cocultures with controlled, low dissolved O₂ could provide a platform to both meet methanotroph oxygen demands and stimulate coproporphyrin excretion in microalgae.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1. (522.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by an MBIE Smart Ideas grant (QT-7183) awarded to CC-C, MBS, CC, PAG and CRC. Ngāti Tahu–Ngāti Whaoa is acknowledged as the iwi having mana whenua (customary rights) over the Rotokawa geothermal field, Galdieria sp. RTK37.1, Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1 and associated microorganisms. We thank Ngāti Tahu–Ngāti Whaoa Runanga Trust and Tauhara North No. 2 Trust for their support of our research.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, CRC., MBS., CC-C, CC, DG, and PAG; methodology, CC-C; formal analysis, CCC; resources, CRC, MBS, CC, DG; data curation, CC-C; writing—original draft preparation, CRC, CC-C; writing—review and editing, CRC, MBS, CC-C, CC, DG, and PAG; visualisation, CRC, CC-C; supervision, CRC, MBS, CC, DG, and PAG; funding acquisition, MBS, CRC, DG. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by an MBIE Smart Ideas Grant (QT-7183) awarded to CC-C, MBS, CC, PAG and CRC.

Data availability

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information files. Should any raw data files be needed in another format they are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A patent application (PCT/IB2024/054,938) has been submitted and is currently in consideration. All authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Cantera S, Munoz R, Lebrero R, Lopez JC, Rodriguez Y, Garcia-Encina PA. Technologies for the bioconversion of methane into more valuable products. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2018;50:128–35. 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.12.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hamer G. Methanotrophy: from the environment to industry and back. Chem Eng J. 2010;160(2):391–7. 10.1016/j.cej.2010.04.008. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Badr K, Hilliard M, Roberts N, He QP, Wang J. Photoautotroph-methanotroph coculture – a flexible platform for efficient biological CO2-CH4 co-utilization. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2019;52(1):916–21. 10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.06.179. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.van der Ha D, Bundervoet B, Verstraete W, Boon N. A sustainable, carbon neutral methane oxidation by a partnership of methane oxidizing communities and microalgae. Water Res. 2011;45(9):2845–54. 10.1016/j.watres.2011.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Li X, Lu Y, Li N, Wang Y, Yu R, Zhu G, et al. Mixotrophic cultivation of microalgae using biogas as the substrate. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(6):3669–77. 10.1021/acs.est.1c06831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.van der Ha D, Nachtergaele L, Kerckhof FM, Rameiyanti D, Bossier P, Verstraete W, et al. Conversion of biogas to bioproducts by algae and methane oxidizing bacteria. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(24):13425–31. 10.1021/es303929s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rasouli Z, Valverde-Pérez B, D’Este M, De Francisci D, Angelidaki I. Nutrient recovery from industrial wastewater as single cell protein by a co-culture of green microalgae and methanotrophs. Biochem Eng J. 2018;134:129–35. 10.1016/j.bej.2018.03.010. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Roberts N, Hilliard M, He QP, Wang J. A microalgae-methanotroph coculture is a promising platform for fuels and chemical production from wastewater. Front Energy Res. 2020. 10.3389/fenrg.2020.563352. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.den Camp HJO, Islam T, Stott MB, Harhangi HR, Hynes A, Schouten S, et al. Environmental, genomic and taxonomic perspectives on methanotrophic Verrucomicrobia. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2009;1(5):293–306. 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2009.00022.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hirooka S, Miyagishima S-Y. Cultivation of acidophilic algae Galdieriasulphuraria and Pseudochlorella sp. YKT1 in media derived from acidic hot springs. Front Microbiol. 2016. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.02022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Donachie SP, Christenson BW, Kunkel DD, Malahoff A, Alam M. Microbial community in acidic hydrothermal waters of volcanically active White Island, New Zealand. Extremophiles. 2002;6(5):419–25. 10.1007/s00792-002-0274-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.den Camp HJO, Mohammadi SS, Pol A, Dunfield PF. Verrucomicrobial methanotrophs. In: Kalyuzhnaya MG, Xing X-H, editors. Methane biocatalysis: paving the way to sustainability. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Badr K, Whelan W, He QP, Wang J. Fast and easy quantitative characterization of methanotroph–photoautotroph cocultures. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2020. 10.1002/bit.27603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hill EA, Chrisler WB, Beliaev AS, Bernstein HC. A flexible microbial co-culture platform for simultaneous utilization of methane and carbon dioxide from gas feedstocks. Bioresour Technol. 2017;228:250–6. 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cartin-Caballero C, Collet C, Gapes D, Gostomski PA, Stott MB, Carere CR. Simultaneous co-cultivation of the thermoacidophilic methanotroph, Methylacidiphilum sp. RTK17.1, and the microalga, Galdieria sp. RTK37.1, for single cell protein production. Eng Microbiol. 2025. 10.1016/j.engmic.2025.100229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Santos CA, Reis A. Microalgal symbiosis in biotechnology. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98(13):5839–46. 10.1007/s00253-014-5764-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jeong SY, Cho KS, Kim TG. Density-dependent enhancement of methane oxidation activity and growth of Methylocystis sp. by a non-methanotrophic bacterium Sphingopyxis sp. Biotechnol Rep. 2014;4:128–33. 10.1016/j.btre.2014.09.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jeong SY, Kim TG. Development of a novel methanotrophic process with the helper micro-organism Hyphomicrobium sp. NM3. J Appl Microbiol. 2019;126(2):534–44. 10.1111/jam.14140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Badr K, He QP, Wang J. A novel semi-structured kinetic model of methanotroph-photoautotroph cocultures for biogas conversion. Chem Eng J. 2022;431:133461. 10.1016/j.cej.2021.133461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ruiz-Ruiz P, Gómez-Borraz TL, Revah S, Morales M. Methanotroph-microalgae co-culture for greenhouse gas mitigation: effect of initial biomass ratio and methane concentration. Chemosphere. 2020;259:127418. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Padmaperuma G, Kapoore RV, Gilmour DJ, Vaidyanathan S. Microbial consortia: a critical look at microalgae co-cultures for enhanced biomanufacturing. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2018;38(5):690–703. 10.1080/07388551.2017.1390728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sarian FD, Rahman DY, Schepers O, van der Maarel MJEC. Effects of oxygen limitation on the biosynthesis of photo pigments in the red microalgae Galdieria sulphuraria strain 074G. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148358. 10.1371/journal.pone.0148358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stadnichuk IN, Bulychev AA, Lukashev EP, Sinetova MP, Khristin MS, Johnson MP, et al. Far-red light-regulated efficient energy transfer from phycobilisomes to photosystem I in the red microalga Galdieria sulphuraria and photosystems-related heterogeneity of phycobilisome population. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg. 2011;1807(2):227–35. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2010.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhu B, Wei D, Pohnert G. The thermoacidophilic red alga Galdieria sulphuraria is a highly efficient cell factory for ammonium recovery from ultrahigh-NH4+ industrial effluent with co-production of high-protein biomass by photo-fermentation. Chem Eng J. 2022;438:135598. 10.1016/j.cej.2022.135598. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dunfield PF, Yuryev A, Senin P, Smirnova AV, Stott MB, Hou S, et al. Methane oxidation by an extremely acidophilic bacterium of the phylum Verrucomicrobia. Nature. 2007;450(7171):879–82. 10.1038/nature06411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Buckeridge E, Caballero CC, Smith DH, Stott MB, Carere CR. Substrate and nutrient manipulation during continuous cultivation of extremophilic algae, Galdieria sp. RTK37.1, substantially impacts biomass productivity and composition. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2024;121(11):3428–39. 10.1002/bit.28814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cartin-Caballero C, Collet C, Gapes D, Gostomski PA, Stott MB, Carere CR. DSOF: a rapid method to determine the abundance of microalgae and methanotrophic bacteria in coculture using a combination of differential sedimentation, optical density, and fluorescence. Bioengineering. 2025;12(9):1000. 10.3390/bioengineering12091000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gregor J, Maršálek B. A simple in vivo fluorescence method for the selective detection and quantification of freshwater cyanobacteria and eukaryotic algae. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol. 2005;33(2):142–8. 10.1002/aheh.200400558. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Salbitani G, Carfagna S. Different behaviour between autotrophic and heterotrophic Galdieria sulphuraria (Rhodophyta) cells to nitrogen starvation and restoration. Impact on pigment and free amino acid contents. Int J Plant Biol. 2020. 10.4081/pb.2020.8567. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sinetova MP, Markelova AG, Los DA. The effect of nitrogen starvation on the ultrastructure and pigment composition of chloroplasts in the acidothermophilic microalga Galdieria sulphuraria. Russ J Plant Physiol. 2006;53(2):153–62. 10.1134/S1021443706020026. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Liu L, Sanchez-Arcos C, Pohnert G, Wei D. Untargeted metabolomics unveil changes in autotrophic and mixotrophic Galdieria sulphuraria exposed to high-light intensity. Int J Mol Sci. 2021. 10.3390/ijms22031247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Henkanatte-Gedera SM, Selvaratnam T, Karbakhshravari M, Myint M, Nirmalakhandan N, Van Voorhies W, et al. Removal of dissolved organic carbon and nutrients from urban wastewaters by Galdieria sulphuraria: Laboratory to field scale demonstration. Algal Res. 2017;24:450–6. 10.1016/j.algal.2016.08.001. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cleary JL, Kolachina S, Wolfe BE, Sanchez LM. Coproporphyrin III produced by the bacterium Glutamicibacter arilaitensis binds zinc and is upregulated by fungi in cheese rinds. mSystems. 2018. 10.1128/msystems.00036-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Stadnichuk IN, Rakhimberdieva MG, Bolychevtseva YV, Yurina NP, Karapetyan NV, Selyakh IO. Inhibition by glucose of chlorophyll a and phycocyanobilin biosynthesis in the unicellular red alga Galdieria partita at the stage of coproporphyrinogen III formation. Plant Sci. 1998;136(1):11–23. 10.1016/S0168-9452(98)00088-0. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Skotnicová P, Sobotka R, Shepherd M, Hájek J, Hrouzek P, Tichý M. The cyanobacterial protoporphyrinogen oxidase HemJ is a new b-type heme protein functionally coupled with coproporphyrinogen III oxidase. J Biol Chem. 2018;293(32):12394–404. 10.1074/jbc.RA118.003441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pol A, Heijmans K, Harhangi HR, Tedesco D, Jetten MSM, den Camp HJO. Methanotrophy below pH 1 by a new Verrucomicrobia species. Nature. 2007;450:874. 10.1038/nature06222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Anttila J, Heinonen P, Nenonen T, Pino A, Iwaï H, Kauppi E, et al. Is coproporphyrin III a copper-acquisition compound in Paracoccus denitrificans? Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg. 2011;1807(3):311–8. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2010.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ake RL, Gouterman M. Porphyrins XIV. theory for the luminescent state in VO, Co, Cu complexes. Theor Chim Acta. 1969;15(1):20–42. 10.1007/BF00526463. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bulach V, Sguerra F, Hosseini MW. Porphyrin lanthanide complexes for NIR emission. Coord Chem Rev. 2012;256(15):1468–78. 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.02.027. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Minoda A, Sawada H, Suzuki S, Miyashita S-I, Inagaki K, Yamamoto T, et al. Recovery of rare earth elements from the sulfothermophilic red alga Galdieria sulphuraria using aqueous acid. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(3):1513–9. 10.1007/s00253-014-6070-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bhuiyan MNI, Takai R, Mitsuhashi S, Shigetomi K, Tanaka Y, Kamagata Y, et al. Zincmethylphyrins and coproporphyrins, novel growth factors released by Sphingopyxis sp., enable laboratory cultivation of previously uncultured Leucobacter sp. through interspecies mutualism. J Antibiot. 2016;69(2):97–103. 10.1038/ja.2015.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pol A, Barends TRM, Dietl A, Khadem AF, Eygensteyn J, Jetten MSM, et al. Rare earth metals are essential for methanotrophic life in volcanic mudpots. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16(1):255–64. 10.1111/1462-2920.12249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Semrau JD, DiSpirito AA, Yoon S. Methanotrophs and copper. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2010;34(4):496–531. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2010.00212.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material 1. (522.5KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information files. Should any raw data files be needed in another format they are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


Articles from Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES