Methane is an important greenhouse gas with a radiative forcing 28 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale. The emission of methane to the atmosphere is controlled by aerobic and anaerobic methanotrophs, which are microorganisms that are able to oxidize methane to conserve energy. While aerobic methanotrophs have been studied for over a century, knowledge on the physiological characteristics of anaerobic methanotrophs is scarce. Here, we describe kinetic properties of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila,” a nitrite-dependent methane-oxidizing microorganism, which is ecologically important and can be applied in wastewater treatment.
KEYWORDS: anaerobic methane oxidation, methylomirabilis, nitrogen cycle
ABSTRACT
Nitrite-dependent methane-oxidizing bacteria couple the reduction of nitrite to the oxidation of methane via a unique oxygen-producing pathway. This process is carried out by members of the genus Methylomirabilis that belong to the NC10 phylum. Contrary to other known anaerobic methane oxidizers, they do not employ the reverse methanogenesis pathway for methane activation but instead a canonical particulate methane monooxygenase similar to those used by aerobic methanotrophs. Methylomirabilis-like bacteria are detected in many natural and manmade ecosystems, but their physiology is not well understood. Here, using continuous cultivation techniques, batch activity assays, and state-of-the-art membrane-inlet mass spectrometry, we determined growth rate, doubling time, and methane and nitrite affinities of the nitrite-dependent methane-oxidizing bacterium “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila.” Our results provide insight into understanding the interactions of these microorganisms with methanotrophs and other nitrite-reducing microorganisms, such as anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacteria. Furthermore, our data can be used in modeling studies as well as wastewater treatment plant design.
IMPORTANCE Methane is an important greenhouse gas with a radiative forcing 28 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale. The emission of methane to the atmosphere is controlled by aerobic and anaerobic methanotrophs, which are microorganisms that are able to oxidize methane to conserve energy. While aerobic methanotrophs have been studied for over a century, knowledge on the physiological characteristics of anaerobic methanotrophs is scarce. Here, we describe kinetic properties of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila,” a nitrite-dependent methane-oxidizing microorganism, which is ecologically important and can be applied in wastewater treatment.
INTRODUCTION
For a long time, microbial methane oxidation was thought to be carried out only by aerobic bacteria (1, 2). However, in 2000, sulfate-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM) was demonstrated as a microbially mediated process (3). This finding was followed by the discovery of nitrate- and nitrite-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane (nitrate- and nitrite-AOM) (4–7). Several studies in the last decade established that nitrite-AOM is performed by bacteria belonging to the NC10 phylum, represented by the cultured species “Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera,” “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila,” and “Candidatus Methylomirabilis sinica” (4, 7, 8). Even though these microorganisms have an anaerobic metabolism, they oxidize methane via an intra-aerobic pathway and activate methane using oxygen through a particulate methane monooxygenase (pMMO), while reducing nitrite to N2 (4). In contrast, nitrate-AOM is catalyzed by archaea from the ANME-2d clade, such as “Candidatus Methanoperedens nitroreducens,” which oxidize methane via the reverse methanogenesis pathway and reduce nitrate preferentially to nitrite and further to ammonium (5, 9, 10).
Since nitrite-AOM was first discovered and the important role of Methylomirabilis-like bacteria in anaerobic oxidation of methane became apparent, molecular tools based on 16S rRNA and pmoA gene amplification were developed to survey this group of bacteria (11, 12). Consequently, ribosomal 16S rRNA and pmoA gene sequences related to this clade have been reported from diverse environments, such as coastal aquifers (13), wastewater treatment plants (14, 15), sediments from freshwater and saline lakes (16–19), peat soil from minerotrophic peatlands (20), agricultural lands and paddy field soils (21–24), marine oxygen minimum zones, sediments (25, 26), and rumen fluid samples (27). Methylomirabilis-like bacteria appear to be present in a wide variety of environments; however, their contribution to global nitrogen and methane fluxes is not yet fully understood (28). Archaea performing nitrate-AOM are usually detected in similar environments where NC10 bacteria are present, such as paddy fields, agricultural sediments, and wastewater treatment plants (6, 24, 29, 30). Furthermore, sequences related to ANME-2d clade archaea have been reported in marine sediments (31), methane seeps (32), and intertidal zones (33). However, their environmental distribution and relevance are less known than those of Methylomirabilis-like bacteria and even fewer studies are specifically focused on their physiology (10, 34, 35).
There have been many attempts to enrich bacteria performing nitrite-AOM to further study their physiology under controlled conditions (8, 29, 36). So far, published enrichment cultures were obtained from limited types of inocula, and the overall enrichment conditions did not change significantly since the first publication of a culture that contained both Methylomirabilis- and Methanoperedens-like microorganisms (6). When nitrate and nitrite were supplied together to anoxic sediments collected from agricultural ditch canals, both nitrate- and nitrite-dependent methane-oxidizing microorganisms were enriched (6, 36). Enrichments solely fed with nitrate resulted in similar cocultures where nitrate-AOM supports nitrite-AOM by producing nitrite (10, 37, 38). On the other hand, when ammonium, methane, and nitrite were supplied as substrates, cocultures of Methylomirabilis species and anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing (anammox) bacteria were achieved (14, 39–41). It was demonstrated that a coculture of Methylomirabilis-like and anammox bacteria could simultaneously oxidize ammonia and methane using nitrite as the common electron acceptor (40). Clearly, there is an intricate interplay between nitrite- and nitrate-dependent anaerobic methane- and ammonium-oxidizing microorganisms in natural ecosystems. These interactions can be advantageous when trying to apply these processes for ammonium and methane removal from wastewater (28, 42, 43). However, key physiological information that is necessary to understand how these processes function in nature or how to apply them for wastewater treatment is still lacking.
Here, we report a combined strategy to selectively enrich a culture that solely contained nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane-oxidizing bacteria as the dominant microorganism, in the absence of nitrate-dependent methane-oxidizing archaea. After revision of the mineral medium composition, we supplemented cerium as a trace metal due to its relevance in methanotrophic metabolism (44). Our efforts resulted in a culture dominated by “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” (8). We determined the affinity of this enrichment culture for dissolved methane and nitrite. Furthermore, we used constant biomass removal to achieve a stable growth rate and were, thus, able to calculate values for apparent yield and doubling time. These results contribute to the necessary knowledge to understand the ecophysiology of the nitrite-AOM process and enable progress toward its sustainable application in wastewater treatment.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Growth medium composition, including macronutrients and micronutrients as well as the supplied substrates and applied physical parameters, control which groups of microorganisms will be dominant in a microbial culture. In previous studies, the mineral medium described by Raghoebarsing et al. in 2006 has been used to enrich nitrite- and nitrate-dependent anaerobic methane-oxidizing microorganisms without significant changes (6). Recent studies have revealed that trace elements, such as Cu, Fe, and cerium (Ce), might be limiting in this medium (21, 36, 44–46). While Cu and Fe are typical metals involved in many enzymes, Ce has only been recently recognized as an important metal for the XoxF-type methanol dehydrogenase (MDH) of methanotrophic and methylotrophic microorganisms, which employ Ce instead of Ca (44, 47). Therefore, the inclusion of this trace metal in the growth medium could influence the type of Methylomirabilis bacteria based on the MDH it carries and expresses. Indeed, when cerium was supplied to an existing enrichment culture, a new species named “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” was enriched (8). Genome analysis of this new species and of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis limnetica” showed that both microorganisms only carry the XoxF-type MDH and no MxaF-type Ca-dependent MDH (18).
In the present study, biomass from the enrichment culture of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” was used to seed a new bioreactor. The seeding culture contained both Methanoperedens-like archaea and “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” (8). The addition of nitrate to bioreactors as a substrate, next to nitrite and methane, determines whether a coculture of Methanoperedens-like archaea and Methylomirabilis-like bacteria (6, 10, 37, 38) or a monoculture of Methylomirabilis-like bacteria (29, 45) will be obtained. Therefore, to achieve a monoculture of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila,” we supplied our bioreactor solely with nitrite as an electron acceptor and methane as an electron donor. The population of Methanoperedens-like archaea decreased (initially approximately 10%) and after 300 days was below the detection limit of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) microscopy (<1%) (Fig. 1).
FIG 1.
Fluorescence in situ hybridization of biomass from the “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” enrichment culture. (A) Inoculum, (B) after 9 months of enrichment, and (C) after 17 months of enrichment. In cyan, “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” (simultaneous hybridization with Dbact193 in FLUOS; EubMix in CY5); in orange, Methanoperedens-like archaea (Darch641 in CY3). Bar = 20 μm.
We used this culture to determine the key physiological properties of nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane-oxidizing bacteria. In order to have an estimate of their growth rate and yield, biomass was removed from the bioreactor at a flow rate of 250 ml d−1 (Fig. 2). When the biomass removal rate was increased to above 300 ml d−1, the culture showed nitrite accumulation and biomass removal was stopped immediately to counteract potential inhibition of the culture due to high nitrite concentrations. Under the imposed growth conditions, during two distinct periods of protein measurements (208 to 238 days and 430 to 460 days), an apparent μmax of 0.14 d−1 was estimated, which corresponds to a doubling time of 5 days. This value was lower than the previous estimates that were between 2 to 8 weeks, which were calculated based on an increase of copy numbers of 16S rRNA genes or nitrogen loading rate, without constant biomass washout (11, 36). A doubling time of 5 days could be advantageous for Methylomirabilis-like bacteria when coping with dynamic conditions in natural habitats or humanmade ecosystems, such as wastewater treatment plants. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the shortest doubling time of Methylomirabilis-like bacteria could be even lower, as demonstrated for anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing (anammox) bacteria. Initially, anammox bacteria were estimated to have a doubling time of around 11 days based on experiments with flocculent biomass (48), whereas experiments with planktonic cells showed that the doubling time of anammox bacteria could be as short as 3 days (49).
FIG 2.
Nitrite removal and protein content of the “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” enrichment culture. Solid and dashed lines represent nitrite load in the medium and in the effluent of the enrichment culture, respectively. Filled circles represent protein measurements. Cerium was added to the reactor starting with inoculation, and biomass removal was started on day 27.
The two distinct periods used for growth rate estimations were also used to determine the yield of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila.” In these periods, the average protein content of the bioreactor was 155 ± 57 μgprotein ml−1 (day 208 to 238) and 133 ± 39 μgprotein ml−1 (day 430 to 460). From these measurements and the mass balance determined in these time periods in our enrichment culture, yields of 0.073 ± 0.027 and 0.085 ± 0.025 C molbiomass molmethane−1 were estimated, respectively. A stoichiometry of 8:3 (nitrite:methane) was used to calculate these values (6). The measured yield of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” was slightly higher than the yield of anammox bacteria (0.066 C molbiomass molammonium−1 [50]), which co-occur with Methylomirabilis species in natural and manmade ecosystems where they compete for the same electron acceptor, nitrite (14, 40). At first glance, this might suggest that a higher yield would give a competitive advantage to Methylomirabilis bacteria; however, it has been demonstrated that anammox bacteria were better competitors under electron acceptor limitation, suggesting that their affinity for nitrite was better than that of Methylomirabilis bacteria (40).
Here, we also determined the affinity of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” to nitrite and methane. Using in situ batch incubations in the bioreactor, an apparent affinity constant of 7 μM for nitrite was determined (Fig. 3), which was the same as what was previously measured for Methylomirabilis oxyfera (51). This value was higher than that of anammox bacteria, which was estimated to be below 5 μM (52, 53). This result was in line with earlier studies, which reported that under nitrite limitation, anammox bacteria outcompete microorganisms that perform nitrite-AOM (40).
FIG 3.

Methane-dependent nitrite reduction by the “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” enrichment culture.
Methylomirabilis bacteria appear to have a high affinity for their electron donor, methane. Previous experiments were all performed by measuring methane in the gas phase of bioreactors, and values as high as 87 to 97 μM were reported (54). Using ex situ batch incubations and online dissolved gas measurements with membrane-inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS), a Vmax of approximately 5.5 nmol methane min−1 mg protein−1 was determined (Fig. 4). The estimated apparent affinity constant of “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” for methane was 2.6 ± 0.7 μM, which was comparable to aerobic methane oxidizers that have an affinity constant in the range of 0.2 to 6 μM (55–57). Affinity to methane could be an important controlling factor determining which methane-oxidizing clades would prevail under methane-limited conditions in natural and humanmade ecosystems. It should be noted that it is most likely that Methylomirabilis bacteria have higher intrinsic affinities (i.e., lower apparent affinity constants) for both methane and nitrite than the estimated values, as experiments with Methylomirabilis bacteria were conducted using flocculent biomass in the absence of available planktonic cells.
FIG 4.
(A) Methane oxidation by the “Candidatus Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila” enrichment culture measured by membrane-inlet mass spectrometry. Four replicates are displayed. Data are normalized to an initial concentration of 8.5 μM methane. (B) Average methane oxidation calculated from the four distinct measurements displayed in panel A. (C) Michaelis-Menten kinetics calculated from values in panel B.
Recently, the methane affinity of nitrate-dependent methane-oxidizing Methanoperedens-like archaea was estimated at 0.5 mM (35). This value is similar to the affinities of microorganisms (ranging from 1.1 mM to 37 mM) that perform sulfate-dependent methane oxidation employing the same reverse methanogenesis pathway (58–61) but considerably higher than that of bacterial methane oxidizers. The difference of affinities for methane could be due to the fact that Methylomirabilis bacteria use canonical particulate methane monooxygenases (pMMO), whereas Methanoperedens-like archaea employ the reverse methanogenesis pathway and activate methane using methyl-coenzyme M reductase (MCR), the enzyme that is responsible for methane production in methanogenesis (62).
Taken together, these results shed light on the ecophysiology of Methylomirabilis bacteria and help understand which groups of microorganisms could prevail under different regimes, such as methane, nitrite, and/or nitrate fluxes, availability of trace elements such as Ce that can be used as a cofactor, and limitation of different substrates or washout rates. Furthermore, the basic kinetic information is also important when designing wastewater treatment plants aiming to remove ammonium and methane simultaneously by making use of anaerobic ammonium and methane oxidation processes. Currently, the anammox process is applied in oxygen-limited systems where aerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacteria supply nitrite to anammox bacteria. The lower affinity of Methylomirabilis bacteria toward nitrite than that of anammox bacteria suggests that the availability of ammonium would be an important control parameter for the competition between these two clades of microorganisms in natural and humanmade ecosystems. This means that the wastewater treatment plants would have to be run under ammonium limitation to prevent the loss of Methylomirabilis bacteria from the system (40). Furthermore, the presence of oxygen in an environment where methane is also present would most likely induce the growth and activity of aerobic methane-oxidizing bacteria (34, 63). In such a situation, aerobic ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms would compete for oxygen with aerobic methane-oxidizing microorganisms, while Methylomirabilis bacteria would compete for nitrite with anammox bacteria and for methane with aerobic methane-oxidizing microorganisms (28, 42). Studying the fascinating interplay of these four clades of microorganisms under ammonium, oxygen, or methane limitation in controlled laboratory-scale bioreactors is required to elucidate their interactions in nature as well as to determine the feasibility of the application of a bioreactor containing these microorganisms for ammonium and methane removal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Enrichment conditions.
From an established enrichment culture (8), biomass (4 liters) was taken to inoculate a new bioreactor, which was made anoxic by flushing with a mixture of Ar/CO2 (95%/5%, vol/vol) for more than 72 h. This enrichment culture was operated as a continuous sequencing batch reactor (nominal volume, 6 liters; Applicon Biotechnology B.V., Applisens, Schiedam, the Netherlands). The reactor was monitored with an oxygen and a pH probe (Applikon Instruments B.V.). Temperature and pH were maintained at 30°C and 7.5, respectively. The enrichment culture was supplied with a mixture of CH4/CO2 (95%/5%, vol/vol), where methane was the sole electron donor. The medium was constantly flushed with a gas mixture of Ar/CO2 (95%/5%, vol/vol). The volume was kept at 4 liters through a level-sensor-controlled pump, the operation occurred in sequential feed (11 h), with an average medium flow rate of 22.7 ml h−1, and rest (1 h) cycles, and stirred at a constant speed of 200 rpm during feed periods. The hydraulic retention time was 4 days. Biomass removal started on day 27 and was performed throughout the reactor operation at a rate of 250 ml d−1 (solids retention time [SRT], 16 days). Biomass removal was stopped only temporarily in periods of reactor instability, such as hardware malfunction or transient nitrite accumulation.
Medium composition.
The composition of the mineral medium was adapted from the initial medium described previously (6). The importance of lanthanides for methanotrophic bacteria described by Pol et al. prompted us to include Ce (44). The mineral medium contained the following per liter: 94 mg MgSO4, 217 mg CaCl2, 100 mg KH2PO4, 800 μg FeSO4, 70 g ZnSO4, 33 μg CoCl2, 750 μg CuSO4, 52 μg NiCl2, 7 μg H3BO3, 64 μg MnCl2, 22 μg Na2WO4, 53 μg Na2MoO4, 25 μg SeO2, and 100 μg CeCl2. The nitrite concentration in the medium was adjusted according to the consumption rate and varied from 1 to 40 mM. Nitrite concentration in the reactor was mostly below the detection limit (<40 μM), seldom increasing up to approximately 250 μM.
Dissolved methane measurements.
Methane consumption was determined through membrane-inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS), in a custom-made glass cylinder cell (volume, 32 ml). The biomass sample was collected from the seeding bioreactor culture (8), while sparging with Ar/CO2 (95%/5%, vol/vol). Biomass was anaerobically washed 3 times with 10 mM MOPS buffered medium (pH 7.3), and MIMS cell was kept anaerobic through sparging with argon before the experiment. Methane was supplied with sequential injections (100 μl) of methane-saturated demineralized water at 1 bar of overpressure (approximate methane concentration of 2.6 mM).
Determination of kinetic parameters.
The results from the MIMS, in the form of counts per second, were converted to concentration during the measurement events. The raw data were subsampled in intervals of 10 seconds and the kinetic determinations were expressed per minute. To determine the approximate values for Vmax and the apparent methane affinity constant (Kmethane app), linearization through Lineweaver Burk plotting was performed to a set of 4 replicates of methane oxidation curves (Fig. 4). The numerical values obtained for all curves were averaged, and from the mathematical model, the kinetic parameters were determined.
The data were converted from counts per second to concentration, by considering an average of 300,000 cps as a zero baseline, based on 3 hours of constant equilibration to determine the baseline from the system. An average of 390,000 cps was consistently the signal intensity corresponding to the starting point of repetitive injections of 100 μl of Milli-Q water saturated with methane at 1 bar of overpressure, which corresponded to 8.5 μM methane at every injection. The reproducibility was experimentally observed with repetitive injections of increasing volumes, resulting in a consistent increase in counts per second.
Protein determination.
Biomass (10 ml) was taken two times per week when the reactor volume was at 4 liters. Three independent samples were taken and homogenized using a glass homogenizer. Each sample was mixed with a 3-M NaOH solution (1:1) and incubated for 30 minutes at 90°C. After being incubated, the sample was brought to room temperature, and CuSO4 (4%, wt/vol) was added (2:1, sample:CuSO4). Samples were vortexed for 30 seconds and centrifuged (13,000 × g, 5 min). The supernatant was measured at 540 nm in a spectrophotometer (Spectronic 200; Thermo Scientific, USA). Bovine serum albumin was used as the protein standard.
Fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Biomass (1.5 ml) was disrupted by passing the sample through a series of needles (inner diameter, 0.8, 0.6, and 0.4 mm). Once disrupted, the sample was washed twice with 1 ml phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; 130 mM NaCl and 10 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.4). After the washing steps, the sample was centrifuged (13,000 × g, 5 min), and the pellet was resuspended in 0.3 ml of PBS and 900 μl paraformaldehyde (4%) and was incubated overnight at 4°C for chemical fixation. FISH was performed as previously described using 35% formamide (45). Fluorescent probes targeting Methylomirabilis-like bacteria (Dbact193 labeled with FLUOS, [6]), most bacteria (EUBI-III labeled with CY5 [64]), and Methanoperedens-like archaea (Darch641 labeled with CY5 [65]) were used. Images were obtained with a Zeiss Axioplan 2 epifluorescence microscope, together with the Axiovision software package (Zeiss, Germany).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Ruud Rijkers, Arjan Pol, Lavinia Gambelli, Sebastian Lücker, Dimitra Sakoula, and Joachim Reiman for their help and discussions.
S.G.-C., M.A.H.J.V.K., and K.S. are supported by grant 13146 from Technology Foundation STW. W.V. and M.S.M.J. are supported by European Research Council (ERC Advanced Grant project EcoMoM 339880) and the SIAM Gravitation Grant on Anaerobic Microbiology (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, NWO/OCW gravitation SIAM 024.002 .002). H.J.M.O.D.C. is supported by the European Research Council (ERC Advanced Grant project VOLCANO 669371). B.K. is supported by the European Research Council (ERC Starting Grant GreenT 640422). W.V. was supported by an NWO/ALW grant (824.15.011) to B.K. M.A.H.J.V.K. was supported by an NWO/VENI grant (016.veni.192.062).
REFERENCES
- 1.Hanson RS, Hanson TE. 1996. Methanotrophic bacteria. Microbiol Rev 60:439–471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Söhngen NL. 1906. Über Bakterien, welche Methan als Kohlenstoffnahrung und Energiequelle gebrauchen. Zentrabl Bakteriol Parasitenk Infektionskr 15:513–517. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Boetius A, Ravenschlag K, Schubert CJ, Rickert D, Widdel F, Gieseke A, Amann R, Jorgensen BB, Witte U, Pfannkuche O. 2000. A marine microbial consortium apparently mediating anaerobic oxidation of methane. Nature 407:623–626. doi: 10.1038/35036572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ettwig KF, Butler MK, Le Paslier D, Pelletier E, Mangenot S, Kuypers MMM, Schreiber F, Dutilh BE, Zedelius J, de Beer D, Gloerich J, Wessels HJCT, van Alen T, Luesken F, Wu ML, van de Pas-Schoonen KT, Op den Camp HJM, Janssen-Megens EM, Francoijs KJ, Stunnenberg H, Weissenbach J, Jetten MSM, Strous M. 2010. Nitrite-driven anaerobic methane oxidation by oxygenic bacteria. Nature 464:543–548. doi: 10.1038/nature08883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Haroon MF, Hu S, Shi Y, Imelfort M, Keller J, Hugenholtz P, Yuan Z, Tyson GW. 2013. Anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to nitrate reduction in a novel archaeal lineage. Nature 500:567–570. doi: 10.1038/nature12375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Raghoebarsing AA, Pol A, van de Pas-Schoonen KT, Smolders AJP, Ettwig KF, Rijpstra WIC, Schouten S, Damsté JSS, Op den Camp HJM, Jetten MSM, Strous M. 2006. A microbial consortium couples anaerobic methane oxidation to denitrification. Nature 440:918–921. doi: 10.1038/nature04617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.He ZF, Cai CY, Wang JQ, Xu XH, Zheng P, Jetten MSM, Hu BL. 2016. A novel denitrifying methanotroph of the NC10 phylum and its microcolony. Sci Rep 6:32241. doi: 10.1038/srep32241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Versantvoort W, Guerrero-Cruz S, Speth DR, Frank J, Gambelli L, Cremers G, van Alen T, Jetten MSM, Kartal B, Op den Camp HJM, Reimann J. 2018. Comparative genomics of Candidatus Methylomirabilis species and description of Ca. Methylomirabilis lanthanidiphila. Front Microbiol 9:1672. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Arshad A, Speth DR, De Graaf RM, Op den Camp HJM, Jetten MSM, Welte CU. 2015. A metagenomics-based metabolic model of nitrate-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane by Methanoperedens-like archaea. Front Microbiol 6:1423. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ettwig KF, Zhu B, Speth D, Keltjens JT, Jetten MSM, Kartal B. 2016. Archaea catalyze iron-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:12792–12796. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1609534113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ettwig KF, van Alen T, van de Pas-Schoonen KT, Jetten MSM, Strous M. 2009. Enrichment and molecular detection of denitrifying methanotrophic bacteria of the NC10 phylum. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:3656–3662. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00067-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Luesken FA, Zhu BL, van Alen TA, Butler MK, Diaz MR, Song B, Op den Camp HJM, Jetten MSM, Ettwig KF. 2011. pmoA primers for detection of anaerobic methanotrophs. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:3877–3880. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02960-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lopez-Archilla AI, Moreira D, Velasco S, Lopez GP. 2007. Archaeal and bacterial community composition of a pristine coastal aquifer in Doñana National Park, Spain. Aquat Microb Ecol 47:123–139. doi: 10.3354/ame047123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hu S, Zeng RJ, Burow LC, Lant P, Keller J, Yuan Z. 2009. Enrichment of denitrifying anaerobic methane oxidizing microorganisms. Environ Microbiol Rep 1:377–384. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2009.00083.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Luesken F, van Alen T, van der Biezen E, Frijters C, Toonen G, Kampman C, Hendrickx T, Zeeman G, Temmink H, Strous M, Op den Camp H, Jetten M. 2011. Diversity and enrichment of nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane oxidizing bacteria from wastewater sludge. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 92:845–854. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3361-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Deutzmann JS, Schink B. 2011. Anaerobic oxidation of methane in sediments of Lake Constance, an oligotrophic freshwater lake. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:4429–4436. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00340-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Yang J, Jiang HC, Wu G, Hou WG, Sun YJ, Lai ZP, Dong HL. 2012. Co-occurrence of nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane oxidizing and anaerobic ammonia oxidizing bacteria in two Qinghai-Tibetan saline lakes. Front Earth Sci 6:383–391. doi: 10.1007/s11707-012-0336-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Graf JS, Mayr MJ, Marchant HK, Tienken D, Hach PF, Brand A, Schubert CJ, Kuypers MMM, Milucka J. 2018. Bloom of a denitrifying methanotroph, “Candidatus Methylomirabilis limnetica,” in a deep stratified lake. Environ Microbiol 20:2598–2614. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Shen LD, Wu HS, Gao ZQ, Liu X, Li J. 2016. Comparison of community structures of Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera-like bacteria of NC10 phylum in different freshwater habitats. Sci Rep 6:25647. doi: 10.1038/srep25647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Zhu BL, van Dijk G, Fritz C, Smolders AJP, Pol A, Jetten MSM, Ettwig KF. 2012. Anaerobic oxidization of methane in a minerotrophic peatland: enrichment of nitrite-dependent methane-oxidizing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:8657–8665. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02102-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hatamoto M, Kimura M, Sato T, Koizumi M, Takahashi M, Kawakami S, Araki N, Yamaguchi T. 2014. Enrichment of denitrifying methane-oxidizing microorganisms using up-flow continuous reactors and batch cultures. PLoS One 9:e115823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lee HJ, Jeong SE, Kim PJ, Madsen EL, Jeon CO. 2015. High resolution depth distribution of Bacteria, Archaea, methanotrophs, and methanogens in the bulk and rhizosphere soils of a flooded rice paddy. Front Microbiol 6:639. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Shen LD, Wu HS, Gao ZQ, Li J, Liu X. 2016. Presence of diverse Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera-like bacteria of NC10 phylum in agricultural soils. J Appl Microbiol 120:1552–1560. doi: 10.1111/jam.13119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Vaksmaa A, Luke C, van Alen T, Vale G, Lupotto E, Jetten MSM, Ettwig KF. 2016. Distribution and activity of the anaerobic methanotrophic community in a nitrogen-fertilized Italian paddy soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 92:fiw181. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiw181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Chen J, Zhou ZC, Gu JD. 2014. Occurrence and diversity of nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane oxidation bacteria in the sediments of the South China Sea revealed by amplification of both 16S rRNA and pmoA genes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:5685–5696. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-5733-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Padilla CC, Bristow LA, Sarode N, Garcia-Robledo E, Ramirez EG, Benson CR, Bourbonnais A, Altabet MA, Girguis PR, Thamdrup B, Stewart FJ. 2016. NC10 bacteria in marine oxygen minimum zones. ISME J 10:2067–2071. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2015.262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Liu LH, Xu XR, Cao YC, Cai CJ, Cui HX, Yao JH. 2017. Nitrate decreases methane production also by increasing methane oxidation through stimulating NC10 population in ruminal culture. AMB Express 7:76. doi: 10.1186/s13568-017-0377-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kuypers MMM, Marchant HK, Kartal B. 2018. The microbial nitrogen-cycling network. Nat Rev Microbiol 16:263–276. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2018.9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hu SH, Zeng RJ, Keller J, Lant PA, Yuan ZG. 2011. Effect of nitrate and nitrite on the selection of microorganisms in the denitrifying anaerobic methane oxidation process. Environ Microbiol Rep 3:315–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2010.00227.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Narrowe AB, Angle JC, Daly RA, Stefanik KC, Wrighton KC, Miller CS. 2017. High-resolution sequencing reveals unexplored archaeal diversity in freshwater wetland soils. Environ Microbiol 19:2192–2209. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Mills HJ, Hodges C, Wilson K, MacDonald IR, Sobecky PA. 2003. Microbial diversity in sediments associated with surface-breaching gas hydrate mounds in the Gulf of Mexico. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 46:39–52. doi: 10.1016/S0168-6496(03)00191-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lloyd KG, Lapham L, Teske A. 2006. Anaerobic methane-oxidizing community of ANME-1b archaea in hypersaline Gulf of Mexico sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:7218–7230. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00886-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wang JQ, Cai CY, Li YF, Hua ML, Wang JR, Yang HR, Zheng P, Hu BL. 2019. Denitrifying anaerobic methane oxidation: a previously overlooked methane sink in intertidal zone. Environ Sci Technol 53:203–212. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Guerrero-Cruz S, Cremers G, van Alen TA, Op den Camp HJM, Jetten MSM, Rasigraf O, Vaksmaa A. 2018. Response of the anaerobic methanotroph “Candidatus Methanoperedens nitroreducens” to oxygen stress. Appl Environ Microbiol 84:e01832-18. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01832-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lu P, Liu T, Ni B-J, Guo JH, Yuan ZG, Hu S. 2019. Growth kinetics of Candidatus “Methanoperedens nitroreducens” enriched in a laboratory reactor. Sci Total Environ 659:442–450. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kampman C, Hendrickx TLG, Luesken FA, van Alen TA, Op den Camp HJM, Jetten MSM, Zeeman G, Buisman CJN, Temmink H. 2012. Enrichment of denitrifying methanotrophic bacteria for application after direct low-temperature anaerobic sewage treatment. J Hazard Mater doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.05.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Gambelli L, Guerrero-Cruz S, Mesman RJ, Cremers G, Jetten MSM, Op den Camp HJM, Kartal B, Lueke C, van Niftrik L. 2018. Community composition and ultrastructure of a nitrate-dependent anaerobic methane-oxidizing enrichment culture. Appl Environ Microbiol 84:e02186-17. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02186-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Vaksmaa A, Guerrero-Cruz S, van Alen TA, Cremers G, Ettwig KF, Lüke C, Jetten MSM. 2017. Enrichment of anaerobic nitrate-dependent methanotrophic “Candidatus Methanoperedens nitroreducens” archaea from an Italian paddy field soil. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101:7075–7084. doi: 10.1007/s00253-017-8416-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Fu L, Ding J, Lu YZ, Ding ZW, Zeng RJ. 2017. Nitrogen source effects on the denitrifying anaerobic methane oxidation culture and anaerobic ammonium oxidation bacteria enrichment process. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101:3895–3906. doi: 10.1007/s00253-017-8163-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Luesken FA, Sánchez J, van Alen TA, Sanabria J, Op den Camp HJM, Jetten MS, Kartal B. 2011. Simultaneous nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane and ammonium oxidation processes. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:6802–6807. doi: 10.1128/AEM.05539-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Shi Y, Hu SH, Lou JQ, Lu PL, Keller J, Yuan ZG. 2013. Nitrogen removal from wastewater by coupling anammox and methane-dependent denitrification in a membrane biofilm reactor. Environ Sci Technol 47:11577–11583. doi: 10.1021/es402775z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.van Kessel MAHJ, Stultiens K, Slegers MFW, Cruz SG, Jetten MSM, Kartal B, Op den Camp HJM. 2018. Current perspectives on the application of N-damo and anammox in wastewater treatment. Curr Opin Biotechnol 50:222–227. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2018.01.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Wang YL, Wang DB, Yang Q, Zeng GM, Li XM. 2017. Wastewater opportunities for denitrifying anaerobic methane oxidation. Trends Biotechnol 35:799–802. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Pol A, Barends TRM, Dietl A, Khadem AF, Eygensteyn J, Jetten MSM, Op den Camp HJM. 2014. Rare earth metals are essential for methanotrophic life in volcanic mudpots. Environ Microbiol 16:255–264. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Ettwig KF, Shima S, van de Pas-Schoonen KT, Kahnt J, Medema MH, Op den Camp HJM, Jetten MSM, Strous M. 2008. Denitrifying bacteria anaerobically oxidize methane in the absence of Archaea. Environ Microbiol 10:3164–3173. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01724.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.He ZF, Geng S, Pan YW, Cai CY, Wang JQ, Wang LQ, Liu S, Zheng P, Xu XH, Hu BL. 2015. Improvement of the trace metal composition of medium for nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane oxidation bacteria: Iron (II) and copper (II) make a difference. Water Res 85:235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.08.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Wu ML, Ettwig KF, Jetten MSM, Strous M, Keltjens JT, van Niftrik L. 2011. A new intra-aerobic metabolism in the nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane-oxidizing bacterium Candidatus “Methylomirabilis oxyfera.” Biochm Soc Trans 39:243–248. doi: 10.1042/BST0390243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Strous M, Heijnen JJ, Kuenen JG, Jetten MSM. 1998. The sequencing batch reactor as a powerful tool for the study of slowly growing anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing microorganisms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 50:589–596. doi: 10.1007/s002530051340. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Lotti T, Kleerebezem R, Abelleira-Pereira JM, Abbas B, van Loosdrecht MCM. 2015. Faster through training: the anammox case. Water Res 81:261–268. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Strous M, Kuenen JG, Jetten MSM. 1999. Key physiology of anaerobic ammonium oxidation. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:3248–3250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Winkler M-KH, Ettwig KF, Vannecke TPW, Stultiens K, Bogdan A, Kartal B, Volcke EIP. 2015. Modelling simultaneous anaerobic methane and ammonium removal in a granular sludge reactor. Water Res 73:323–331. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.01.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Awata T, Oshiki M, Kindaichi T, Ozaki N, Ohashi A, Okabe S. 2013. Physiological characterization of an anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacterium belonging to the “Candidatus Scalindua” group. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:4145–4148. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00056-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Oshiki M, Shimokawa M, Fujii N, Satoh H, Okabe S. 2011. Physiological characteristics of the anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacterium “Candidatus Brocadia sinica.” Microbiology 157:1706–1713. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.048595-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.He ZF, Cai C, Geng S, Lou LP, Xu XY, Zheng P, Hu BL. 2013. Mdodeling a nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane oxidation process: parameters identification and model evaluation. Bioresour Technol 147:315–320. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Dunfield PF, Yuryev A, Senin P, Smirnova AV, Stott MB, Hou S, Ly B, Saw JH, Zhou Z, Ren Y, Wang J, Mountain BW, Crowe MA, Weatherby TM, Bodelier PLE, Liesack W, Feng L, Wang L, Alam M. 2007. Methane oxidation by an extremely acidophilic bacterium of the phylum Verrucomicrobia. Nature 450:879–883. doi: 10.1038/nature06411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Kravchenko IK, Kizilova AK, Bykova SA, Men’ko EV, Gal’chenko VF. 2010. Molecular analysis of high-affinity methane-oxidizing enrichment cultures isolated from a forest biocenosis and agrocenoses. Microbiology 79:106–114. doi: 10.1134/S0026261710010145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Pol A, Heijmans K, Harhangi HR, Tedesco D, Jetten MSM, Op den Camp HJM. 2007. Methanotrophy below pH1 by a new Verrucomicrobia species. Nature 450:874–878. doi: 10.1038/nature06222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Timmers PHA, Gieteling J, Widjaja-Greefkes HCA, Plugge CM, Stams AJM, Lens PNL, Meulepas RJW. 2015. Growth of anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaea and sulfate-reducing bacteria in a high-pressure membrane capsule bioreactor. Appl Environ Microbiol 81:1286–1296. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03255-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Yamamoto S, Alcauskas JB, Crozier TE. 1976. Solubility of methane in distilled water and seawater. J Chem Eng Data 21:78–80. doi: 10.1021/je60068a029. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Krüger M, Wolters H, Gehre M, Joye SB, Richnow HH. 2008. Tracing the slow growth of anaerobic methane-oxidizing communities by (15)N-labelling techniques. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 63:401–411. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2007.00431.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Nauhaus K, Boetius A, Krüger M, Widdel F. 2002. In vitro demonstration of anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to sulphate reduction in sediment from a marine gas hydrate area. Environ Microbiol 4:296–305. doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00299.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Krüger M, Meyerdierks A, Glöckner FO, Amann R, Widdel F, Kube M, Reinhardt R, Kahnt R, Bocher R, Thauer RK, Shima S. 2003. A conspicuous nickel protein in microbial mats that oxidize methane anaerobically. Nature 426:878–881. doi: 10.1038/nature02207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Luesken FA, Wu ML, Op den Camp HJM, Keltjens JT, Stunnenberg H, Francoijs KJ, Strous M, Jetten MSM. 2012. Effect of oxygen on the anaerobic methanotroph “Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera”: kinetic and transcriptional analysis. Environ Microbiol 14:1024–1034. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02682.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Daims H, Bruhl A, Amann R, Schleifer KH, Wagner M. 1999. The domain-specific probe EUB338 is insufficient for the detection of all bacteria: development and evaluation of a more comprehensive probe set. Syst Appl Microbiol 22:434–444. doi: 10.1016/S0723-2020(99)80053-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Schubert CJ, Vazquez F, Lösekann-Behrens T, Knittel K, Tonolla M, Boetius A. 2011. Evidence for anaerobic oxidation of methane in sediments of a freshwater system (Lago di Cadagno). FEMS Microbiol Ecol 76:26–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.01036.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]



