Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jan 9;15(1):e0227639. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227639

Characterization of black patina from the Tiber River embankments using Next-Generation Sequencing

Federica Antonelli 1,*, Alfonso Esposito 2, Ludovica Calvo 3, Valerio Licursi 4, Philippe Tisseyre 5, Sandra Ricci 6, Manuela Romagnoli 1, Silvano Piazza 2, Francesca Guerrieri 3,7,*
Editor: Ana R Lopes8
PMCID: PMC6952188  PMID: 31917800

Abstract

Black patinas are very common biological deterioration phenomena on lapideous artworks in outdoor environments. These substrates, exposed to sunlight, and atmospheric and environmental agents (i.e. wind and temperature changes), represent extreme environments that can only be colonized by highly versatile and adaptable microorganisms. Black patinas comprise a wide variety of microorganisms, but the morphological plasticity of most of these microorganisms hinders their identification by optical microscopy. This study used Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) (including shotgun and amplicon sequencing) to characterize the black patina of the travertine embankments (muraglioni) of the Tiber River in Rome (Italy). Overall, the sequencing highlighted the rich diversity of bacterial and fungal communities and allowed the identification of more than one hundred taxa. NGS confirmed the relevance of coccoid and filamentous cyanobacteria observed by optical microscopy and revealed an informative landscape of the fungal community underlining the presence of microcolonial fungi and phylloplane yeasts. For the first time high-throughput sequencing allowed the exploration of the expansive diversity of bacteria in black patina, which has so far been overlooked in routine analyses. Furthermore, the identification of euendolithic microorganisms and weathering agents underlines the biodegradative role of black patina, which has often been underestimated. Therefore, the use of NGS to characterize black patinas could be useful in choosing appropriate conservation treatments and in the monitoring of stone colonization after the restoration interventions.

Introduction

In the field of cultural heritage, the term “patina” has several meanings: the time-dependent darkening of frescos and oil paintings, the superficial oxidation of bronze and copper, and, more generally speaking, the surface transformations that lead to the ageing of artworks. Since the late 1990s, this term has also been used to define an aesthetic change of rock surfaces linked to biological colonization [1]. The growth of microorganisms (bacteria, cyanobacteria, algae, fungi, and lichens) on lapideous surfaces, as well as aesthetic alteration, can cause an actual deterioration of the stone. The damage is predominantly linked to the production of organic and inorganic acids and to an euendolithic living habitus [26].

Black crusts, defined as “crusts developing generally on areas protected against direct rainfall or water runoff in urban environments […], composed mainly of particles from the atmosphere trapped in gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O)” [7], are different from black patinas, which are biofilms composed of pigmented microorganisms and represent a very common deterioration phenomenon on lapideous artworks in outdoor environments. Lapideous artworks can be considered as extreme environments, characterized by inhospitable surfaces exposed to several stresses such as high solar radiation, desiccation and rehydration, considerable diurnal and annual temperature fluctuations, and lack of nutrients [8]. Consequently, they can only be colonized by microorganisms characterized by constitutive or fast adaptive cellular or metabolic responses to these conditions. The main adaptations are the production of UV-screening compounds, exopolymeric substances that retain an adequate water content, and constituent compounds of thick cell walls that protect cells against physicochemical hazards [813]. Black patinas contain microbial communities composed of a wide variety of microorganisms (mainly cyanobacteria, microalgae and rock inhabiting fungi (RIF) [8,11]) in different physiological states, that can live as either epiliths on the rock surfaces or as endoliths (cryptoendoliths, chasmoendoliths or euendoliths) within the substrate [4,6,14,15].

Phototrophic microorganisms are the first colonizers of rock surfaces in outdoor environments [16]. Their spores, cells, and propagation structures, dispersed by wind, water, and animals (such as birds, bats, and squirrels) [17], adhere to the rock and initiate biofilm formation in which a heterogeneous matrix of microorganisms is held together and tightly bound to underlying surfaces by extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) [8]. The growth of cyanobacteria on natural rocks leads to variously colored strips, known as Tintenstriche [18], the composition of which has been widely studied [for a review see 15]. Similarly, these patinas can be found on stone monuments exposed outdoors; Albertano (2012) [19] reports an exhaustive review of the works carried out on this topic. Phototrophic colonizers enrich substrates with organic carbon (produced during photosynthesis) and nitrogen (produced during nitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria) [20]. Consequently, the presence of these nutrients favors the settlement of heterotrophic microorganisms. Previous studies of RIF showed that these heterotrophic microorganisms can be divided into two groups: Hyphomycetes of soil and/or epiphytic origin, and microcolonial fungi (MCF) [8,21,22]. Since 2012, the class of Hyphomycetes has undergone a profound modification and numerous genera and species previously belonging to this class have been reassigned to other classes of Ascomycetes. MCF are ubiquitous colonizers of rock surfaces worldwide and possess particular features such as a very plastic morphology, a high degree of melanization, meristematic growth, and the abundant production of EPS [23]. They are Ascomycetes of the classes Dothideomycetes and Eurotiomycetes. Molecular phylogenetic studies classified these microorganisms as follow: Dothideomycetes RIF belong to the orders Capnodiales, Dothideales, and Pleosporales; while Eurotiomycetes RIF cluster in the lineages of Chaetothyriales and Verrucariales [22,2426].

Several studies have demonstrated that chemoorganotrophic and chemolithotrophic bacteria form part of the microbial communities present on different types of rock [7]. From early 2000, the application of molecular techniques has confirmed the presence of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, and the Cytophaga–Flavobacterium–Bacteroides group in subaerial biofilms present on stone artworks [2729]; however, the importance of these microorganisms and their biodegradative role has not yet been thoroughly investigated.

Knowledge of the taxa present in patinas, and of their ecological requirements, is necessary when choosing appropriate conservation treatments. It is, however, not always easy to identify the constituents of these microbial communities; due to their morphological plasticity, the identification of patina-related microorganisms by optical microscope observation is usually very difficult or not possible, and culturing methods are always limited by the special living conditions of these microorganisms [3]. By the end of the twentieth century, the introduction of molecular identification methods had contributed to the identification of a large number of microbial components of patinas that were previously unknown [14,3032]; nevertheless, identifying the exact composition of a black patina remains challenging. Considering this, the first aim of the present study was to test high-throughput sequencing with Illumina platforms (Miseq and Nextseq) for the characterization of the black patina of the travertine embankments (muraglioni) of the Tiber River in Rome (Italy). The second aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of this molecular technique by comparing it to a traditional method routinely used for the characterization of biological colonization of artworks.

Materials and methods

Sample collection and description

The Tiber River’s embankments were built between 1875 and 1926 on the basis of the project of the engineer Raffaele Canevari. They are riverbank walls made of travertine, more than 18 m high and 8 km long, and function in protecting the city from flooding. The embankments were chosen for this study on the biological colonization because they represent good examples of lapideous artwork that have been exposed in an urban outdoor environment for a long time.

Although no data are available on the origin of the travertine used in the river Tiber’s embankments, it is likely that it was obtained from the outcrops of the thermal springs (Acque Albule) located at the foothills of Tiburtini Mountains, near Tivoli (Rome). In general, calcite represents over 99% of travertine composition, the remaining part is made up of layers rich in anhydrite, magnesite, quartz, sanidine, piroxenes, micas, garnets, and spinels [33]. The rock texture may be vacuolar or radiating fibrous with a high variability in terms of quantity, dimension, and shape of the pores. The number of pores and cavities in a slab, which depends on the slab’s position in the deposit and on the cutting direction relative to the deposition of layers, highly influences the amount of water retained and bioreceptivity of the stone [34].

The city of Rome is characterized by a mid-latitude temperate climate, with hot summers and mild and relatively moist winters. The autumn is usually the rainiest season, while the incidence of snowfall is negligible. Information about rainfall trends and temperature, provided by a study carried at 21 stations over the period 1984–2014, show that in the urban area of Rome the average annual precipitation is 793 mm (784.4 mm registered from the Ostiense station, nearest to the sampling site) and the annual mean temperature is 14°C [35].

The patina and control samples were collected from the northwestern embankment of the Tiber River (Fig 1), along Porto di Ripa Grande, at a height of around 170 cm. For each sample 1 sq.cm of travertine was scraped with a sterile scalpel and the resulting powder preserved at 4°C. The black patina was randomly sampled from areas where no other biological colonization was present (i.e. mosses, lichens, plants). The areas covered with graffiti were avoided. The controls were collected from white, apparently un-colonized areas. Twenty samples of black patina (B) and twenty controls (uncolonized regions, U) were used for NGS (S1 Table), while three black patina and three controls samples were observed as unstained wet-mounts through an optical microscope (Leica DM RB).

Fig 1. The northwestern embankment of the Tiber River along Porto di Ripa Grande.

Fig 1

The arrows indicate two examples of sampled areas (black arrow = B; white arrow = U).

DNA extraction

Each B and U powder was resuspended in 60 μl of lysozyme (10 mg/ml) and 240 μl of TE 1X. After vortexing, each sample was incubated for 30 min at 37°C. Subsequently, 300 μl of lysis buffer (#MC5001C Promega) and 30 μl of Proteinase K (#MC500C) were added to the samples, which were then incubated 20 min at 56°C. Total genomic DNA was extracted using a Maxwell® RSC Instrument (Promega, Wisconsin, USA) and a genomic DNA extraction kit (Promega, cat no. #AS1400), as per manufacturers’ instructions. The total DNA extracted is reported in S1 Table.

Library preparation and sequencing

The V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene (amplified using the primers described in Illumina 16s protocol: # 15044223 Rev. B) and the ITS2 fungal region (amplified using the following primers: ITS3 PCR Forward Primer 5' TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAG-GCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGC-3’ and ITS4 Reverse Primer 5' GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAG-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3’) were subject to amplicon library preparation (according to Illumina’s instructions, 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation, Part # 15044223 Rev. B). Shotgun libraries were prepared using Nextera XT library Prep (Illumina Cat. FC-131-1024). Eeach library was determined using Agilent 2200 Tapestation (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, United States) and quantified using a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer with a Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit (cat# Q32851, Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, United States). Sequencing was performed at the CLNS@Sapienza Genomics facitlity (Center for Life NanoScience@Sapienza, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Rome, Italy), using Miseq (2x300 paired-end, 600-cycle) and Nextseq500 (2x150 paired-end, 300-cycle) Illumina platforms.

Sequencing data analysis

Marker data were analyzed using QIIME2 (https://qiime2.org), according to the standard pipelines. Briefly, quality trimming and OTU-picking was done using DADA2 [36], representative sequences were aligned using MAFFT [37], uninformative positions were masked and a phylogenetic tree was built with FastTree [38]. The alpha diversity values and beta diversity (i.e. UniFrac distance) were calculated on rarefied samples. Rarefaction values (3000 reads for 16S and 300 for ITS) were chosen upon observation of rarefaction curves (S1 Fig). Assessment of significant variation of alpha diversity between categories was determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Beta diversity significance (among categories) test was calculated with PERMANOVA and Mantel test, respectively. Taxonomic assignments were made for representative sequences using the most updated version of the SILVA database (release 132) [39], or the UNITE database (for fungal data) [40]. The feature classifier was trained using the QIIME2 classify-sklearn plugin on the database; the same plugin was used to classify the reads in the real dataset. All the unassigned sequences were further inspected using BLAST on the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s (NCBI) 16S ribosomal RNA sequences database to integrate the taxonomic assignment.

Raw shotgun sequencing reads were co-assembled using MEGAHIT [41], the resulting contigs were imported into the advanced analysis and visualization platform, Anvi’o, for subsequent analysis [42]. Reads were re-mapped on the contigs to obtain coverage information, and contigs were binned according to their k-mer frequency and coverage using CONCOCT [43]. We only retained genomes with a completion score above 90% (calculated as the percentage of single-copy genes retrieved in the genome) and redundancy below 10%. A putative taxonomy was assigned to the bins using PhyloPhlAn [44], considering the Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) of the genome bin with the closest relative found by the program. Functions encoded in the MAGs were classified according to the COG categories using eggNOG-mapper [45].

Results

Microscope observations

Light microscope (Leica DM RB) observations of black patina samples revealed the presence of bacteria, cyanobacteria, chlorophyta and, fungi. Bacteria and cyanobacteria were the most abundant taxa in all the observed wet-mounts. Cyanobacteria were either coccoid or filamentous forms, present as either single cells or colonies. The most abundant coccoid cyanobacteria were spherical cells, rarely solitary but were most frequently grouped in irregular agglomerations or formed roughly spherical colonies. The cells had a green or yellowish content and a thin yellowish or brownish sheath. Other sub-spherical cells, 6–18 μm in diameter, green-yellowish in color, and mainly grouped in dyad arrangements or forming small cell aggregates were identified as Chroococcus lithophilus Ercegovic 1925 (Fig 2A). The filamentous cyanobacteria (12–20 μm wide) were unbranched, with cells 8–16 μm wide, distinctly shorter than wide or at most as long as wide, and covered by a thin colorless of slightly yellowish sheath. These cells were thought to be part of the family Scytonemataceae (order Scytonematales). Coccoid green algae, 12–19 μm in diameter were also observed within these samples (Fig 2B). The cells were spherical, relatively thin walled with a central chloroplast and one pyrenoid. Fungal structures (spores and hyphae) were also present in all the samples. The hyphae were composed of spherical or slightly elongated cells, 5–10 μm in diameter, with thick melanized walls typical of black meristematic fungi (Fig 2C). The microbial communities of control samples were composed mainly of bacteria with few, single cells of coccoid cyanobacteria. With the exception of C. lithophilus, it was not possible to identify the other observed microorganisms due to the lack of taxonomical features.

Fig 2. Optical microscope images of the microorganisms observed in B samples.

Fig 2

(A) Chroococcus litophilus (Cyanobacteria); (B) coccoid green alga (Chlorophyta); (C) meristematic fungus.

Bacterial community

The Illumina Miseq platform was used to sequence the bacterial 16S rRNAs V3-V4 region of thirty-two samples (12 from uncolonized controls and 20 from black patina). Only 12 of the 20 control samples yielded detectable amplicon levels; no amplification was detected in the remaining 8 samples. From each amplicon 16S rRNA gene sequence library, we obtained 9,736 ± 3,320 and 5,280 ± 2,036 reads, for B and U respectively (after filtering low-quality reads and chimeras), corresponding to 559 OTUs. The distribution of microbial communities was evaluated based on beta diversity (Fig 3A), which reflects differences between bacterial communities, and the results showed that the samples clustered in two well-defined groups. Alpha diversity, based on the number of observed OTUs and on Chao1/ACE/Shannon/Simpson indices, is a parameter that indicates the richness and the biodiversity of the microbial community in each sample. Black patina samples had a high alpha diversity index value, indicating great species richness, while the uncolonized controls presented a lower bacterial diversity (Fig 3B). Both ecological parameters thus highlighted two significantly different habitats. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) of bacterial phylum, class, family, order, or species was conducted and confirmed a significant separation among cohorts U and B (P < 0.001). The results obtained for black patina showed the presence of taxa mainly belonging to the phyla Bacteroidetes, Cyanobacteria, Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, and Actinobacteria, with a predominance of the first three phyla, whereas Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes were enriched in U samples. In particular, the phylum Cyanobacteria was the most abundant division of the black patina, comprising approximately 35% of the total reads in all the libraries. It is noteworthy that the uncolonized controls did not contain any member of Cyanobacteria and the most abundant phylum (approximately 45%) was Firmicutes, which was absent in B. The B community was mainly composed of genera belonging to the families Sphingomonadaceae (genus Sphingomonas), Chroococcidiopsaceae (g., Chroococcidiopsis and Aliterella), Spirosomaceae (g. Spirosoma), Rhodobacteraceae (g. Rubellimicrobium), Blastocatellaceae (g. Blastocatella), Chitinophagaceae (g. Flavisolibacter), Kineosporiaceae (g. Quadrisphaera), and Acetobacteraceae (g. Craurococcus) (Fig 3C and S2 Table). The first five families in the preceding list accounted for more than 50% of the identified sequences for ten of the studied samples. The genus Chroococcus, observed through optical microscopy in patina samples, was not present in the 16S rRNA gene sequencing results. In order to investigate this absence, we performed an additional BLAST analysis on the unassigned OTUs (S3 Table). These sequences found BLAST hits within the genera Kryptousia (10 OTUs), Nostoc (7), Chamaesiphon (5), Kastovskya (3), Chlorogloeopsis and Aliterella (2), Vampirovibrio, Sinosporangium, Hassallia, Fischerella, Cylindrospermum, Chroococcidiopsis, Calochaete, Brasilonema, and Anabaena (1). Constraining the BLAST search on the genus Chroococcus did not give any significant result.

Fig 3. Statistical analyses of 16S rRNA gene sequencing data.

Fig 3

(A) Beta diversity represented by Principle Coordinate Analysis Emperor plot on a Bray-Curtis distance matrix; (B) Boxplots of Alpha-diversity Index (calculated as Shannon index) in both black patina and uncolonized region samples; (C) Stacked bar charts of the taxonomic profile at family level, low abundance taxa are lumped together in the “Others” category.

Overall, 16S rRNA gene sequencing confirmed the abundant presence bacteria in the black patina, already observed by optical microscopy, but also demonstrated a high degree of species richness and evenness.

Fungal community

ITS2-rDNA sub-region amplicon libraries were created from 20 samples of both B and U. Only six U samples were able to enrich for the ITS2 region (S1 Table). The number of sequences for fungi was about 6,707 ± 4,446 reads for B and about 217 ± 389 reads for U samples. Beta diversity, similarly to the bacterial dataset, showed two distinct communities in which the black patina exhibited the greatest biodiversity (Fig 4A).

Fig 4. Statistics about ITS2 data.

Fig 4

(A) Beta diversity represented by a Principle Coordinate Analysis Emperor plot on a Bray-Curtis distance matrix; (B) Stacked bar charts of the taxonomic profile at species level, low abundance taxa are lumped together in the “Others” category.

Sequence analysis of B samples identified more than 80 taxa belonging to the Kingdoms Fungi, Plantae, and Chromista. Fungi were present in all analyzed samples. Excluding the unclassified sequences, the most represented phylum was Ascomycota, with relative frequencies always higher than 40%. Basidiomycota sequences were < 10% for nineteen of the twenty analyzed samples and approximately 17% for the remaining sample. The most represented classes were Dothideomycetes, Eurotiomycetes, Lecarnomycetes, Tremellomycetes, Cystobasidiomycetes, Sordariomycetes, and Agaricomycetes, with a marked predominance of the first two. The most represented orders were Dothideales, Pleosporales, Capnodiales (class Dothideomycetes), Chaetothyriales, Verrucariales (class Eurotiomycetes), Teloschistales (class Lecarnomycetes), Filobasidiales (class Tremellomycetes), Helotiales (class Leotiomycetes), and Lecarnorales (class Lecarnomycetes). The predominant genera were Coniosporium, Aureobasidium,, Caloplaca, Filobasidium, Setophaeosphaeria, and Alternaria (Fig 4B and S4 Table).

Organisms from the kingdom Plantae were observed only in two of the analyzed samples, with the genus Trebouxia (phylum Chlorophyta, class Trebouxiophyceae, order Trebouxiales, family Trebouxiaceae) representing 1% of the analyzed sequences (Fig 4B and S4 Table).

Organisms from the kingdom Chromista were present in two of the B samples. It was not possible to characterize these sequences at a lower level.

All the sequences identified for U samples belonged to the kingdom Fungi, phyla Ascomycota and Basidiomycota. Not considering the unidentified sequences, the only classes represented were Eurotiomycetes, Sordariomycetes, and Malasseziomycetes within the orders Chaetothyriales, Xylariales, and Malasseziales, respectively. Only the genera Coniosporium and Malassezia were identified (Fig 4B and S4 Table), while for the sequences belonging to the order Xylariales it was only possible to determine the family Diatrypaceae.

Shotgun sequencing

Amplicon sequencing allowed for the classification of taxa present in the black patina, but in order to further characterize the genetic features of the microbial communities, we performed the shotgun sequencing. Only 13 black patina and 3 control samples generated reads (S1 Table). Binning with the CONCOCT algorithm resulted in 202 bins, accounting for >702 Mbp, however, after a manual check, the number of genomes dropped to seven (Table 1); two were classified as Hymenobacter sp., whereas the remaining five could only be classified at a taxonomic level above genus level (ANI below 85% with the known closest relative). Ten bacterial species (Friedmanniella luteola, Gemmatirosa kalamazoonesis, Geodermatophilus obscurus, Hymenobacter sp., Modestobacter marinus, Spirosoma montaniterrae, and Spirosoma rigui) displayed a significantly greater abundance in black patina samples compared to control samples (LDA score above 3.5) (Fig 5). Species with a significantly higher representation in U samples were Cutibacterium acnes, Massilia oculi, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, along with sequences classified as Homo sapiens.

Table 1. MAGs genome assembly statistics including completeness and redundancy scores.

ID Putative Classification Genome size Number of contigs N50 GC % Completeness Redundancy
Bin_110 Hymenobacter sp. 5.25 Mb 971 7.572 62,71 97,12 6,47
Bin_113_1 Cyanobacteria 5.44 Mb 897 8.401 42,11 93,53 7,91
Bin_95 Hymenobacter sp. 5.36 Mb 1.289 4.893 56,06 87,77 5,76
Bin_97_1 Chloroflexi 5.44 Mb 1.097 6.418 58,76 87,05 7,19
Bin_124 Chitinophagaceae 4.24 Mb 766 7.358 48,39 87,05 2,88
Bin_70_1 Actinobacteria 2.90 Mb 364 9.563 70,07 87,05 5,76
Bin_126_1 Acidobacteria 2.71 Mb 292 12.334 63,43 86,33 7,19

Fig 5. Species found to be differentially abundant using LEfSe analysis on shotgun metagenomics data analyzed using kraken.

Fig 5

Functional analysis revealed that most of the proteins encoded in the MAGs genomes were classified as unknown functions (COG category “S”, excluded from Fig 6 for readability); on the other hand, proteins connected to cell-wall/membrane/envelop biogenesis (COG category “M”), as well as proteins involved in replication and repair machinery (L) and in amino-acid transport and metabolism were highly represented (Fig 6), whereas proteins involved in RNA processing and modification (A), cell motility (N), and cell cycle control and mitosis (D) were the least represented. No significant differences could be calculated between the two environments because the genomes were all derived from black patina samples.

Fig 6. Bar charts summarizing the number of proteins annotated (y-axis) in a specific COG category (on the x) in the seven MAGs.

Fig 6

Discussion

Next-Generation Sequencing allowed for the characterization of the composition of black patina on the travertine Tiber embankments. In particular, it was possible to show that the black patina samples displayed higher diversity than controls, which was confirmed by 16S rRNA gene and ITS2 amplicon sequencing.

The bacterial communities of B samples were dominated by cyanobacteria, which accounted for 35% of the total reads in all libraries. Ogawa et al., (2017) [46] reported that the proportion of cyanobacteria in sequenced reads from decorative siliceous stone was unexpectedly low and proposed the use of specific primers for detecting this phylum. We did not observe this failure at phylum level and the present results indicate that 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing can successfully be used to analyze microbial communities inhabiting stone monuments.

Among the bacterial families identified in B samples, only Chroococcidiopsidaceae and Nostocaceae are mentioned in the literature with genera (e.g. Gloeocapsa, Chlorogloea, Myxosarcina, Rivularia, Tolypothrix, and Nostoc) that are well known members of microbial patinas on rocks in subaerial environments [4,16,47]. In particular, the identified genera Chroococcidiopsis and Scytonema, belonging to these families, have often been reported in studies of the colonization of rock surfaces, frescos, plasters, and limestone monuments [19,47]. Cyanobacteria are an important component of subaerial biofilms and usually dominate communities where water seepages are present [8]. Their survival on rock surfaces is guaranteed due to their ability to withstand desiccation and the presence of pigments and other UV-protectants in the cytoplasm or EPS [12,4850]. In the most extreme environments, some cyanobacteria have the ability to avoid environmental stresses by living inside the rock (endolithic habitus); some species belonging to the genus Chroococcidiopsis are considered the most frequent and widespread crypto-endolithic organisms [51].

In order to understand the biodegradative role of the black patina, it must be recognized that several studies have highlighted the importance of cyanobacteria in the weathering of rocks [5255]. In particular, Pentecost (1992) [56] reported that black patinas containing cyanobacteria belonging to the genera Gleocapsa and Scytonema may play a key role in this process, achieving a surface weathering rate of up to 3 mm/100 y, probably because the dehydration and rehydration of the sheaths contribute to the loosening of the rock.

Bacteria of the family Sphingomonadaceae are commonly isolated from soil, freshwater, and marine habitats, and from plant phyllospheres or rhizospheres, with few species reported as human or plant pathogens [57]. Species of the genus Sphingomonas, identified in all the B samples, are involved in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon degradation [57,58], and their presence in the black patina may therefore be linked to the presence of substances of anthropogenic origin (e.g. pollutants from motor vehicles). Blastocatellaceae comprises mesophilic and thermotolerant bacteria that are slow-growing K-strategists that prefer oligotrophic growth conditions and are able to survive drought and nutrient limitation; species belonging to this family are common in arid soils and soil crusts [59]. Spirosomaceae includes gram-negative, ring-forming, aerobic, nonmotile bacteria, mainly isolated from aquatic (freshwater lakes, marshes, and marine water) and soil environments; members of this family produce characteristic non-diffusible pigmentation [60]. Rhodobacteraceae comprises mainly aquatic bacteria, frequently isolated from marine environments, including aerobic photo- and chemo-heterotrophs or anaerobic photoautotrophic purple non-sulfur bacteria [61]. Bacteria belonging to Chitinophagaceae are gram-negative, often forming yellow colonies [62]; in particular, species of the genus Flavisolibacter have been isolated mainly from soil and water [6365]. Finally, Kineosporiaceae comprises a group of diverse aerobic mesophilic actinobacteria, isolated mainly from soils and plant materials [66]; the genus Quadrisphaera includes microorganisms isolated from a batch-fed activated sludge reactor [67].

Considering that most of the microorganisms belonging to the identified families originate from water or soil environments, their presence in the black patina is as a result of contamination due to the proximity of the Tiber and its shores cannot be excluded. However, the high relative abundance of some of the identified genera (reaching almost 20% in the case of Sphingomonas) led us to hypothesize that the presence of these microorganisms in the patina was not due to contamination but that they actually formed part of the patina. The fact that these microorganisms have never before been reported in black patinas on stone artifacts is most likely due to the techniques routinely used in the field of cultural heritage, which are often not appropriate for their detection or identification [68,69].

Some of the bacterial species identified in B samples through shotgun sequencing deserve special attention. Spirosoma montaniterrae are gram-negative, yellow-pigmented, long rod-shaped bacteria, highly resistant to UV-C and gamma-radiation. They have been isolated from a mountain soil sample collected at Mt. Deogyusan (Jeonbuk province, South Korea) [70]. Hymenobacter is a gram-negative, non-motile bacterial genus belonging to the family Cytophagaceae (order Sphingobacteriales). Several species belonging to this genus have been isolated from extreme environments (e.g. Antarctic soil, sandstone surface, permafrost, uranium mine waste waters, etc.) and exhibit high radiation resistance [7174]. Both the 16S rRNA gene sequence and the shotgun sequencing data sets revealed Hymenobacter as one of the differentially abundant taxa between control and black patina samples (more abundant in B). It was also possible to assemble the whole genome for this taxon; this implies that it had both a specific tetranucleotide signature and pattern of coverage across samples. Finally, Geodermatophilus obscurus and Modestobacter marinus, belonging to the family Geodermatophilaceae (order Geodermatophiliales), are described in literature as stone-dwelling actinobacteria resistant to environmental hazards, involved in stone biodeterioration due to their euendolithic habitus [75,76]. Geodermatophilaceae are usually isolated from desert soil or rock varnish in deserts [7781], G. obscurus and species of the genus Modestobacter have also been isolated from black, orange and grey patinas of stone monuments in the Mediterranean basin [82]. Proteogenomic analysis of these two species carried out by Sghaier et al. (2016) [83] investigated their adaptation strategies to the stone-surface environment. The work highlighted the presence of several genes, involved in the biosynthesis of carotenoids (absorbing almost uninterruptedly from 200 nm to 750 nm), stress relief, reactive oxygen species detoxification, and DNA protection and repair, in addition to operons encoding genes for photosynthesis reactions, and highly expressed biomarkers encoding proteins implicated in the development of biofilms. It is interesting to note that the functional analysis carried out during our study underlined the presence of proteins connected to strategies of adaptation to harsh and stressful environments. In particular, cell-wall, membrane, and envelope biogenesis proteins (COG category “M”), as well as proteins involved in replication and repair machinery (L), are indicative of bacterial response to environmental stresses like UV radiation and desiccation [8486].

Fungal species belonging to several of the genera identified in the B communities (e.g. Aureobasidium pullulans, Coniosporium apollinis, Alternaria alternata, Cladosporium, Knufia petricola, and Vermiconia antartica) are reported as RIF and MCF, isolated from patinas on monuments or stone surfaces in urban environments [9,8794]. It is well known that these fungi are able to survive the harsh conditions of stone surface due to several adaptations. For example, melanin pigmentation confers mechanical strength to hyphae enabling the fungi to grow into crevices, and, together with other pigments (carotenoids and mycosporines), protects the cells from UV radiation [8,95]. Furthermore, the microcolonial and yeast-like growth makes the cells thermodynamically efficient, and able to withstand heat and desiccation [8].

The genera Aureobasidium, Alternaria, and Cladosporium are typical of fungal communities in moderate or humid climates, while others like Coniosporium, are characteristic of arid and semi-arid environments [88]. This could identify the Tiber’s embankments as an intermediate habitat. In order to define the biodegradative role of the black patina, it must be underlined that MCF are able to penetrate rock substrates mechanically, producing lesions known as pitting [93,9597]. This action, linked to the forces exerted by growing hyphae, is made possible by the rigidity of the cell wall and by the turgor of the cells. A study recently carried out by De Leo and colleagues (2019) [6] on a marble statue of the Quirinale Palace’s Gardens (Rome) showed that MCF (Coniosporium apollinis and Knufia sp.) penetrated the marble to a depth of more than 100 μm, producing tunnels of up to 11 μm in diameter, disposed along the marble crystals’ edges or deeply penetrating inside them. It is interesting to note that the abundance of MCF genera in black patina from this study was much lower than reported in other studies [e.g. 9]. In order to reject the hypothesis that these conflicting results were linked to the absence of MCF sequences in the QIIME2 database, the database was mined for sequences from genera most frequently reported in the studies on RIF. Apart from a few exceptions, all considered genera were present in the database with one or more species. Therefore, the scarcity of MCF sequences in the Tiber embankments’ black patina can be attributed, with some certainty, to the actual composition of the community. The discrepancy between MCF data from this study and literature data might be linked to the shading conditions created by plants that influence moisture content and surface temperatures, creating an environment not suitable for the growth of most of the MCF species adapted to more extreme environments. Furthermore, it is known that the presence of vegetation in the vicinity of the stone surface colonized by black patina microorganisms, influences the composition of the community [9,21]. The occurrence in the B samples of genera containing wood-associated, saprobic, and plant pathogen species (e.g. Erysiphe, Filobasidium, Setophaeosphaeria, Sclerostagonospora, Coprinopsis, and Macrodiplodiopsis) [98104] can therefore be easily explained as contamination, linked to the presence of the riparian vegetation, mainly composed of trees belonging to the genus Platanus L., 1753. Plant-related genera, species of which are reported in literature as phylloplane yeasts (e.g. Filobasidium, Buckleyzyma, Papiliotrema, Vishniacozyma, and Dioszegia) [105107], deserve a special mention. Phylloplane microorganisms are adapted to live in the harsh conditions of plant leaf surfaces, conditions mainly characterized by poor and fluctuating nutrient availability and relatively long periods of desiccation and high solar radiation due to the production of protective pigments such as melanin, mycosporines, ubiquinone, and carotenoids [107,108]. These adaptations are very similar to those usually reported for MCF adaptation on rock surfaces. Taking these features into consideration and the fact that the relative abundance of some of these genera in Tiber embankment black patina was greater than 6%, it is hypothesized that phylloplane yeasts could form an active part of black patina, and that their presence was not simply due to riparian vegetation contamination. Corroborating this hypothesis is the fact that Aureobasidium pullulans, normally reported as MCF typical of black patinas, has also been reported as a phylloplane yeast [107].

ITS2-rDNA sub-region amplicon analysis revealed the presence of the lichen genera Caloplaca and the Chlorophycean Trebouxia. Caloplaca species are colonizers of base-rich siliceous stones, limestone, concrete, sandstone, and mortar [109112], yet to our knowledge there are no reports on the presence of this genus in black patinas. Trebouxia is a unicellular green algae; T. arboricola has often been reported as an epiphytic or epilithic colonizer of stone monuments in shaded areas characterized by low substrate humidity or prone to desiccation [113115].

Figs 7 and 8 clearly show that the composition of the microbiota of U samples is very different to that of black patina. The bacterial and fungal taxa most abundant in B samples are almost completely absent in the control areas. It is worth noting that in U almost all the families identified through 16S rRNA gene sequencing (e.g. Lachnospiraeae, Muribaculaceae, Prevotellaceae, Ruminococcaceae, Helicobacteraceae, and Akkemansiaceae) are typically found in the mammalian gut environment or in human feces [116121]. Furthermore, of the three species identified through shotgun sequencing, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Cutibacterium acnes are environmental and commensal human skin bacteria (causing opportunistic infections), respectively [122,123], while Massilia oculi has reportedly been isolated from a clinical specimen from a patient suffering from endophthalmitis [124]. Regarding ITS2-rDNA sub-region amplicon analysis data, Coniosporium sp. are considered a RIF and the genus Malassezia comprises species related to opportunistic infections, commonly find on the skin of many animals, including humans, [125]. Furthermore, Diatrypaceae comprises species predominantly saprotrophic on the decaying wood of angiosperms worldwide, which are sometimes associated with plant diseases [126]. Considering the low number of reads and the few identified taxa, we cannot say that U samples contained actual bacterial or fungal communities. The presence of bacteria in U samples is due to obvious contamination from the Tiber’s water or from humans frequenting the river’s bank, while the presence of fungal sequences is the result of environmental contamination.

Fig 7. Boxplots showing the differential abundance of specific bacterial taxa.

Fig 7

The graphics are divided according to the phyla they belong.

Fig 8. Boxplots showing the differential abundance of specific fungal taxa.

Fig 8

The graphics are divided according to the order they belong.

When comparing the results obtained with optical microscope observations and NGS, the difference in sensitivity between optical microscopy, that allowed the observation and identification of only limited taxa, and NGS, that identified > 100 different taxa in the black patina, is very obvious. Molecular analyses confirmed the predominance of bacteria and cyanobacteria in the black patina and of bacteria in the U samples, as observed through optical microscopy. The 16S rRNA and ITS2-rDNA sub-region sequencing allowed the identification (to genus level) of the microorganisms observed using optical microscopy (for example Chroococcidiopsis and Scytonema for the coccoid and filamentous cyanobacteria, respectively, Coniosporium, Aureobasidium, and Knufia for the MCF, and Trebouxia for the coccoid green algae), and highlighted the presence of lichens not observed with the naked eye or microscope. Currently, the main limitation of NGS in studying black patinas and subaerial biofilms in general, is the absence of several OTUs in the reference database. This is confirmed by the presence of the unidentified sequences in the obtained results.

The absence of 16S rRNA gene amplicons of Chroococcus species, which contradicts the microscope observations, could be due to the lack of corresponding sequences of this species in the databases. While the lack of Chroococcus in the assembly with NCBI of unassigned reads may be related to specific difficulties in DNA extraction.

It is important to note that the complete overview of the black patina composition obtained with NGS is unique compared to the results reported in literature. In fact, in the studies carried out on black patinas, identification of microorganisms was achieved by optical microscopy or DNA sequencing and usually focused on cyanobacteria, algae, fungi, and lichens, completely neglecting bacteria. As also shown in the present work, microscope analyses, in most cases, do not yield good results. Phototrophic microorganisms have a high morphological plasticity that sometimes makes identification impossible, while RIF, and in particular MCF, have no taxonomical features useful for distinguishing different genera [e.g. 4,6]. To overcome these limitations the most recent studies have used molecular techniques. However, in these studies DNA for sequencing was extracted from cultured microorganisms [e.g. 9,88,89] and it is well known that culture methods are highly biased by the living condition of the analyzed microorganisms, which are adapted to live in harsh environments that are difficult to reproduce in the laboratory. For this reason, data generated using such methods are only representative of a selection of species that are more easily cultivable and not of the whole community.

Knowledge of the composition of the black patina is useful for conservation purposes. NGS results highlighted the presence of microorganisms involved in stone weathering (cyanobacteria) or with euendolithic habitus (MCF). This emphasizes that the role of black patina in the biodeterioration of the stone artifacts is not just linked to an aesthetical alteration and should not be neglected. Periodic restoration interventions should probably be carried out to prevent microorganisms from degrading the artifacts. Furthermore, considering the ability of NGS to detect the presence of biodeteriogens, even when low amounts of DNA are present, this molecular technique could allow the monitoring of stone colonization over time, even after restoration interventions.

Conclusions

The high-throughput sequencing study of the black patina of the Tiber’s embankments highlighted the rich diversity of bacterial and fungal communities. The method allowed for the collection of extensive information on the total (culture-independent) microbial community comprising microorganisms which have thus far been underestimated or neglected in analyses routinely carried out in studies of stone artifacts. Furthermore, the sequencing results allowed for the identification of genera that could not be identified through optical microscopy due to a lack of defining morphological features.

The sequencing results gave a clear idea of the microbial composition of the Tiber’s embankments’ black patina, highlighting the presence of genera described as endolithic biodeteriogens, or weathering agents. The obtained results emphasize how in-depth knowledge of the patina composition allows an understanding of its important biodeteriogenic role, which is often underestimated. Furthermore, the NGS analyses highlighting the presence of taxa not detected in previous studies may serve as a starting point for further investigations on the biodeteriogenic role of these groups of microorganisms.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

Rarefaction curves showing the Shannon values (A and B) and phylogenetic diversity (C and D) for ITS (A and C) and 16S rRNA (B and D). Values are grouped according to the type of samples (black patina vs. uncolonized controls) and displayed as box plots each with 500 reads.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Metadata: Distinct sample IDs, specific amount of DNA extraction and corresponding obtained library.

Red color indicates a failed first quality check, whereas an asterisk (*) shows the samples excluded after rarefaction curve analysis.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Average taxonomic abundance (with standard deviation) for each bacterial family in uncolonized controls and black patina samples.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Taxonomic assignment inferred by BLAST on the NCBI 16S ribosomal sequence database of unclassified reads at the level of phylum (unclassified cyanobacteria) and kingdom (unclassified bacteria).

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Average taxonomic abundance (with standard deviation) for each fungal genus in uncolonized controls and black patina samples.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Barbara Davidde Petriaggi and Dr. Luca Pozzana for their precious support.

Data Availability

All data are available from the NCBI database (accession number PRJNA553109)

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Krumbein WE. Pinta and Patina–How Microbes change Surfaces. Geomicrobiol—Geomicrobiol ICBM Univ Oldenbg; 1997; [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dong H, Rech JA, Jiang H, Sun H, Buck BJ. Endolithnic cyanobacteria in soil gypsum: Occurences in Atacama (Chile), Mojave (United States), and Al-Jafr Basin (Jordan) Deserts. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences. 2007;112: 1–11. 10.1029/2006JG000385 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McNamara C, Perry TD, Zinn M, Breuker M, Muller R, Hernandez-Duque G, et al. Microbial Processes in the Deterioration of Maya Archaeological Buildings in Southern Mexico Art, Biology, and Conservation: Biodeterioration of Works of Art. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art; 2003. pp. 248–265. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Golubić S, Pietrini A, Ricci S. Euendolithic activity of the cyanobacterium Chroococcus lithophilus Erc. in biodeterioration of the pyramid of Caius Cestius, Rome, Italy. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation. 2015;100: 7–16. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964830515000311 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gaylarde CC, Gaylarde PM, Neilan BA. Endolithic phototrophs in built and natural stone. Curr Microbiol. 2012;65: 183–188. 10.1007/s00284-012-0123-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.De Leo F, Antonelli F, Pietrini AM, Ricci S, Urzì C. Study of the euendolithic activity of black meristematic fungi isolated from a marble statue in the Quirinale Palace’s Gardens in Rome, Italy. Facies. 2019;65: 18 10.1007/s10347-019-0564-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vergès-Belmin V. Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns = Glossaire illustré sur les formes d’altération de la pierre. Internatio. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gorbushina AA. Life on the rocks. Environ Microbiol. 2007;9: 1613–1631. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01301.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Isola D, Zucconi L, Onofri S, Caneva G, de Hoog GS, Selbmann L. Extremotolerant rock inhabiting black fungi from Italian monumental sites. Fungal Divers. 2016;76: 75–96. 10.1007/s13225-015-0342-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Krumbein WE. Patina and cultural heritage: a geomicrobiologist’s perspective. Cult Herit Res a pan-European Chall. 2003; 39–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Urzì C, Wollenzien U, Criseo G, Krumbein WE. Biodiversity of the rock inhabiting microflora with special reference to black fungi and black yeasts. Microb Divers Ecosyst Funct. 1995;16: 289–302. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Castenholz RW, Garcia-Pichel F. Cyanobacterial Responses to UV Radiation Ecology of Cyanobacteria II. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. pp. 481–499. 10.1007/978-94-007-3855-3_19 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Franklin LA, Osmond CB, Larkum AWD. Photoinhibition, UV-B and Algal Photosynthesis Photosynthesis in algae. Dordrecht: Springer; 2003. pp. 351–384. 10.1007/978-94-007-1038-2_16 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sterflinger K, De Baere R, De Hoog GS, De Wachter R, Krumbein WE, Haase G. Coniosporium perforans and C. apollinis, two new rock-inhabiting fungi isolated from marble in the Sanctuary of Delos (Cyclades, Greece). Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Int J Gen Mol Microbiol. 1997;72: 349–363. 10.1023/A:1000570429688 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Golubic S, Friedmann EI, Schneider J. The lithobiontic ecological niche, with special reference to microorganisms. J Sediment Res. 1981;51: 475–478. Available: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-abstract/51/2/475/97360 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hauer T, Mühlsteinová R, Bohunická M, Kaštovský J, Mareš J. Diversity of cyanobacteria on rock surfaces. Biodivers Conserv. 2015;24: 759–779. 10.1007/s10531-015-0890-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hirsch P, Eckhardt FEW, Palmer RJ Jr. Methods for the study of rock-inhabiting microorganisms—a mini review. J Microbiol Methods. 1995;23: 143–167. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016770129500017F [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jaag O. Untersuchungen über die Vegetation und Biologie der Algen des näckten gesteins in den Alpen, im Jura und im schweizerischen Mittelland. Beiträge zur Kryptogamen Flora der Schweiz. 1945;9: 1–560. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Albertano P. Cyanobacterial Biofilms in Monuments and Caves Ecology of Cyanobacteria II. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. pp. 317–343. 10.1007/978-94-007-3855-3_11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ortega-Calvo JJ, Ariño X, Hernandez-Marine M, Saiz-Jimenez C. Factors affecting the weathering and colonization of monuments by phototrophic microorganisms. Sci Total Environ. 1995;167: 329–341. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004896979504593P [Google Scholar]
  • 21.De Leo F, Criseo G, Urzi C. Impact of surrounding vegetation and soil on the colonization of marble statues by dematiaceous fungi. Proceeding of the eighth international congress on deterioration and conservation of stone. 1996. pp. 625–630. Available: http://iscs.icomos.org/pdf-files/Berlin1996/deleetal.pdf
  • 22.Sterflinger K, de Hoog GS, Haase G. Phylogeny and ecology of meristematic ascomycetes. Stud Mycol. 1999;43: 5–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gorbushina A. Microcolonial Fungi: Survival Potential of Terrestrial Vegetative Structures. Astrobiology. 2003;3: 543–554. 10.1089/153110703322610636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gueidan C, Villaseñor CR, De Hoog GS, Gorbushina AA, Untereiner WA, Lutzoni F. A rock-inhabiting ancestor for mutualistic and pathogen-rich fungal lineages. Stud Mycol. 2008;61: 111–119. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166061614602013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ruibal C, Gueidan C, Selbmann L, Gorbushina AA, Crous PW, Groenewald JZ, et al. Phylogeny of rock-inhabiting fungi related to Dothideomycetes. Stud Mycol. 2009;64: 123–133. 10.3114/sim.2009.64.06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ruibal C, Platas G, Bills GF. High diversity and morphological convergence among melanised fungi from rock formations in the Central Mountain System of Spain. Persoonia Mol Phylogeny Evol Fungi. 2008;21: 93–110. 10.3767/003158508X371379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McNamara CJ, Mitchell R. Microbial deterioration of historic stone. Front Ecol Environ. 2005;3: 445–451. 10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0445:MDOHS]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.McNamara CJ, Perry TD, Bearce KA, Hernandez-Duque G, Mitchell R. Epilithic and Endolithic Bacterial Communities in Limestone from a Maya Archaeological Site. Microb Ecol. 2006;51: 51–64. 10.1007/s00248-005-0200-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schabereiter-Gurtner C, Saiz-Jimenez C, Pinar G, Lubitz W, Rolleke S. Phylogenetic 16S rRNA analysis reveals the presence of complex and partly unknown bacterial communities in Tito Bustillo cave, Spain, and on its Palaeolithic paintings. Environ Microbiol. 2002;4: 392–400. 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00303.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Portillo MC, Gonzalez JM. Microbial community diversity and the complexity of preserving cultural heritage. Biocolonization of Stone: Control and Preventive Methods: Proceedings from the MCI Workshop Series No 2. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press; 2011. pp. 19–28.
  • 31.McNamara C, Konkol NR, Ross BP, Mitchell R. Characterization of Bacterial Colonization of Stone at Global and Local Scales. Biocolonization of Stone: Control and Preventive Methods: Proceedings from the MCI Workshop Series, No 2. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press; 2011. pp. 29–36.
  • 32.Tang Y, Lian B, Dong H, Liu D, Hou W. Endolithic Bacterial Communities in Dolomite and Limestone Rocks from the Nanjiang Canyon in Guizhou Karst Area (China). Geomicrobiol J. 2012;29: 213–225. 10.1080/01490451.2011.558560 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cortesi C, Leoni M. Studio sedimentologico e geochimico del travertino di un sondaggio a Bagni di Tivoli. Period di Mineral. 1958;27: 407–458. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Caneva G, Di Stefano D, Giampaolo C. Stone cavity and porosity as a limiting factor for biological colonisation: the travertine of Lungotevere (Rome). Proc 10th Int Congr Deterior Conserv Stone. 2004;1: 227–232. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ciriaco_Giampaolo/publication/303483539_Stone_cavity_and_porosity_as_limiting_factor_for_biological_colonisation_the_travertine_of_Lungotevere_Rome/links/577be95708aec3b743366bac/Stone-cavity-and-porosity-as-limiting-f
  • 35.Conte G, Del Bon A, Gafà RM, Martarelli L, Monti GM. Analisi meteo-climatica del territorio di Roma nel periodo 1984–2014. Acque Sotter—Ital J Groundw. 2016;AS15071: 33–45. 10.7343/AS-130-15-0157 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13: 581 Available: https://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v13/n7/abs/nmeth.3869.html 10.1038/nmeth.3869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT: Iterative Refinement and Additional Methods Multiple sequence alignment methods. Totowa, NJ: Humana press; 2014. pp. 131–146. 10.1007/978-1-62703-646-7_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree: computing large minimum evolution trees with profiles instead of a distance matrix. Mol Biol Evol. 2009;26: 1641–1650. Available: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/26/7/1641/1128976 10.1093/molbev/msp077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41: D590–D596. 10.1093/nar/gks1219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nilsson RH, Larsson K-H, Taylor AFS, Bengtsson-Palme J, Jeppesen TS, Schigel D, et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;47: D259–D264. 10.1093/nar/gky1022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Li D, Luo R, Liu C-M, Leung C-M, Ting H-F, Sadakane K, et al. MEGAHIT v1.0: A fast and scalable metagenome assembler driven by advanced methodologies and community practices. Methods. 2016;102: 3–11. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.02.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Eren AM, Esen ÖC, Quince C, Vineis JH, Morrison HG, Sogin ML, et al. Anvi’o: an advanced analysis and visualization platform for ‘omics data. PeerJ. 2015;3: e1319 10.7717/peerj.1319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Alneberg J, Bjarnason BS, de Bruijn I, Schirmer M, Quick J, Ijaz UZ, et al. Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition. Nat Methods. 2014;11: 1144–1146. 10.1038/nmeth.3103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Segata N, Börnigen D, Morgan XC, Huttenhower C. PhyloPhlAn is a new method for improved phylogenetic and taxonomic placement of microbes. Nat Commun. 2013;4: 2304 10.1038/ncomms3304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Coelho LP, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, et al. Fast Genome-Wide Functional Annotation through Orthology Assignment by eggNOG-Mapper. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34: 2115–2122. 10.1093/molbev/msx148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ogawa A, Celikkol-Aydin S, Gaylarde C, Baptista-Neto JA, Beech I. Microbiomes of Biofilms on Decorative Siliceous Stone: Drawbacks and Advantages of Next Generation Sequencing. Curr Microbiol. 2017;74: 848–853. 10.1007/s00284-017-1257-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pentecost A, Whitton BA. Subaerial Cyanobacteria Ecology of Cyanobacteria II. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. pp. 291–316. 10.1007/978-94-007-3855-3_10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Potts M. Mechanisms of desiccation tolerance in cyanobacteria. Eur J Phycol. 1999;34: 319–328. 10.1080/09670269910001736382 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Garcia-Pichel F, Castenholz RW. Occurrence of UV-Absorbing, Mycosporine-Like Compounds among Cyanobacterial Isolates and an Estimate of Their Screening Capacity. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993;59: 163–9. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16348839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dillon JG, Tatsumi CM, Tandingan PG, Castenholz RW. Effect of environmental factors on the synthesis of scytonemin, a UV-screening pigment, in a cyanobacterium (Chroococcidiopsis sp.). Arch Microbiol. 2002;177: 322–331. 10.1007/s00203-001-0395-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ecology Büdel B. and diversity of rock-inhabiting cyanobacteria in tropical regions. Eur J Phycol. 1999;34: 361–370. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Viles H. Ecological perspectives on rock surface weathering: towards a conceptual model. Geomorphology. 1995;13: 21–35. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169555X9500024Y [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Garcia-Vallès MC, Urzì C, Vendrell-Saz M. Weathering processes on the rock surface in natural outcrops: the case of an ancient marble quarry (Belevi, Turkey). Environ Geol. 2002;41: 889–897. 10.1007/s00254-001-0466-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Siegesmund S, Weiss T, Vollbrecht A, editors. Natural stone, weathering phenomena, conservation strategies and case studies [Internet]. Geological Society special publication n. 205. London: Geological Society of London; 2002. Available: https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/205/1/1.short [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Villa F, Stewart PS, Klapper I, Jacob JM. Subaerial biofilms on outdoor stone monuments: changing the perspective toward an ecological framework. Bioscience. 2016;66: 285–294. Available: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/66/4/285/2464002 [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pentecost A. A note on the colonization of limestone rocks by cyanobacteria. Arch fur Hydrobiol. 1992;124: 167–172. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Glaeser SP, Kämpfer P. The Family Sphingomonadaceae. The Prokaryotes: Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria. 2014; 641–707. Available: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-30197-1_302.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Al-Thani RF, Potts M. Cyanobacteria, Oil–and Cyanofuel? Ecology of Cyanobacteria II. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. pp. 427–440. 10.1007/978-94-007-3855-3_16 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Dedysh SN, Sinninghe Damsté JS. Acidobacteria. eLS. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2018. pp. 1–10. 10.1002/9780470015902.a0027685 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Raj HD, Maloy SR. Family Spirosomaceae: Gram-Negative Ring-Forming Aerobic Bacteria. Crit Rev Microbiol. 1990;17: 329–364. 10.3109/10408419009114761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Pujalte MJ, Lucena T, Ruvira MA, Arahal DR, Macián MC. The Family Rhodobacteraceae. The Prokaryotes: Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria. 2014; 439–512. Available: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-30197-1_377.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Rosenberg E. The Family Chitinophagaceae. prokaryotes other major lineages Bact Archaea. 2014; 493–495. Available: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-38954-2_137.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Yoon M-H, Im W-T. Flavisolibacter ginsengiterrae gen. nov., sp. nov. and Flavisolibacter ginsengisoli sp. nov., isolated from ginseng cultivating soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007;57: 1834–1839. 10.1099/ijs.0.65011-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Baik KS, Kim MS, Lee JH, Lee SS, Im W-T, Seong CN. Flavisolibacter rigui sp. nov., isolated from freshwater of an artificial reservoir and emended description of the genus Flavisolibacter. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64: 4038–4042. 10.1099/ijs.0.065664-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Joo ES, Cha S, Kim MK, Jheong W, Seo T, Srinivasan S. Flavisolibacter swuensis sp. nov. Isolated from Soil. J Microbiol. 2015;53: 442–447. 10.1007/s12275-015-5241-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Normand P, Benson DR. Kineosporiaceae. Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015. pp. 1–2. 10.1002/9781118960608.fbm00025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Normand P, Benson DR. Quadrisphaera. Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015. pp. 1–3. 10.1002/9781118960608.gbm00055 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Sterflinger K, Piñar G. Microbial deterioration of cultural heritage and works of art—Tilting at windmills? Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97: 9637–9646. 10.1007/s00253-013-5283-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Ricci S, De Leo F, Urzì C, Guerrieri F, Antonelli F. Advantages of a multidisciplinary approach in the study and the characterisation of black patinas. In: Macchia A, Masini N, La Russa MF, Prestileo F, editors. Dialogues in Cultural heritage, Books of Abstracts of the 6th YOCOCU Conference. Matera: YOCOCU, CNR–IBAM (Istituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali); 2018. pp. 277–280.
  • 70.Lee J-J, Kang M-S, Joo ES, Kim MK, Im W-T, Jung H-Y, et al. Spirosoma montaniterrae sp. nov., an ultraviolet and gamma radiation-resistant bacterium isolated from mountain soil. J Microbiol. 2015;53: 429–434. 10.1007/s12275-015-5008-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Hirsch P, Ludwig W, Hethke C, Sittig M, Hoffmann B, Gallikowski CA. Hymenobacter roseosalivarius gen. nov., sp. nov. from Continental Antarctic Soils and Sandstone: Bacteria of the Cytophaga/Flavobacterium/Bacteroides Line of Phylogenetic Descent. Syst Appl Microbiol. 1998;21: 374–383. 10.1016/s0723-2020(98)80047-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Zhang Q, Liu C, Tang Y, Zhou G, Shen P, Fang C, et al. Hymenobacter xinjiangensis sp. nov., a radiation-resistant bacterium isolated from the desert of Xinjiang, China. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007;57: 1752–1756. 10.1099/ijs.0.65033-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Chung AP, Lopes A, Nobre MF, Morais P V. Hymenobacter perfusus sp. nov., Hymenobacter flocculans sp. nov. and Hymenobacter metalli sp. nov. three new species isolated from an uranium mine waste water treatment system. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2010;33: 436–443. 10.1016/j.syapm.2010.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Han L, Wu S-J, Qin C-Y, Zhu Y-H, Lu Z-Q, Xie B, et al. Hymenobacter qilianensis sp. nov., isolated from a subsurface sandstone sediment in the permafrost region of Qilian Mountains, China and emended description of the genus Hymenobacter. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2014;105: 971–978. 10.1007/s10482-014-0155-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Gtari M, Essoussi I, Maaoui R, Sghaier H, Boujmil R, Gury J, et al. Contrasted resistance of stone-dwelling Geodermatophilaceae species to stresses known to give rise to reactive oxygen species. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2012;80: 566–577. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01320.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Ortega-Morales BO, Gaylarde CC, Englert GE, Gaylarde PM. Analysis of Salt-Containing Biofilms on Limestone Buildings of the Mayan Culture at Edzna, Mexico. Geomicrobiol J. 2005;22: 261–268. 10.1080/01490450500182524 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Liu R, Li K, Zhang H, Zhu J, Joshi D. Spatial distribution of microbial communities associated with dune landform in the Gurbantunggut Desert, China. J Microbiol. 2014;52: 898–907. 10.1007/s12275-014-4075-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.del Carmen Montero-Calasanz M, Hofner B, Göker M, Rohde M, Spröer C, Hezbri K, et al. Geodermatophilus poikilotrophi sp. nov.: A Multitolerant Actinomycete Isolated from Dolomitic Marble. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014: 1–11. 10.1155/2014/914767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.del Carmen Montero-Calasanz M, Göker M, Rohde M, Schumann P, Pötter G, Spröer C, et al. Geodermatophilus siccatus sp. nov., isolated from arid sand of the Saharan desert in Chad. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2013;103: 449–456. 10.1007/s10482-012-9824-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.del Carmen Montero-Calasanz M, Göker M, Pötter G, Rohde M, Spröer C, Schumann P, et al. Geodermatophilus arenarius sp. nov., a xerophilic actinomycete isolated from Saharan desert sand in Chad. Extremophiles. 2012;16: 903–909. 10.1007/s00792-012-0486-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.del Carmen Montero-Calasanz, Goker M, Potter G, Rohde M, Sproer C, Schumann P, et al. Geodermatophilus normandii sp. nov., isolated from Saharan desert sand. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2013;63: 3437–3443. 10.1099/ijs.0.051201-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Urzì C, Brusetti L, Salamone P, Sorlini C, Stackebrandt E, Daffonchio D. Biodiversity of Geodermatophilaceae isolated from altered stones and monuments in the Mediterranean basin. Environ Microbiol. 2001;3: 471–479. 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2001.00217.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Sghaier H, Hezbri K, Ghodhbane-Gtari F, Pujic P, Sen A, Daffonchio D, et al. Stone-dwelling actinobacteria Blastococcus saxobsidens, Modestobacter marinus and Geodermatophilus obscurus proteogenomes. ISME J. 2016;10: 21–29. 10.1038/ismej.2015.108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Baliga NS, Bjork SJ, Bonneau R, Pan M, Iloanusi C, Kottemann MCH, et al. Systems level insights into the stress response to UV radiation in the halophilic archaeon Halobacterium NRC-1. Genome Res. 2004;14: 1025–35. 10.1101/gr.1993504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Matallana-Surget S, Joux F, Raftery MJ, Cavicchioli R. The response of the marine bacterium Sphingopyxis alaskensis to solar radiation assessed by quantitative proteomics. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11: 2660–2675. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01992.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Tanaka M, Earl AM, Howell HA, Park M-J, Eisen JA, Peterson SN, et al. Analysis of Deinococcus radiodurans’s transcriptional response to ionizing radiation and desiccation reveals novel proteins that contribute to extreme radioresistance. Genetics. 2004;168: 21–33. 10.1534/genetics.104.029249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Sert HB, Sümbül H, Sterflinger K. Microcolonial fungi from antique marbles in Perge/Side/Termessos (Antalya/Turkey). Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2007;91: 217–227. 10.1007/s10482-006-9111-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Sterflinger K. Fungi: their role in deterioration of cultural heritage. Fungal Biol Rev. 2010;24: 47–55. 10.1016/j.fbr.2010.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Frank-Kamenetskaya O V., Vlasov DY, Zelenskaya MS, Knauf I V., Timasheva MA. Decaying of the marble and limestone monuments in the urban environment. Case studies from Saint Petersburg, Russia. Stud UBB Geol. 2009;54: 17–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Páramo-Aguilera L, Ortega-Morales BO. Culturable fungi associated with urban stone surfaces in Mexico City. Electron J Biotechnol. 2012;15: 4. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Sterflinger K, Prillinger H. Molecular taxonomy and biodiversity of rock fungal communities in an urban environment (Vienna, Austria). Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2001;80: 275–286. 10.1023/a:1013060308809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Tang Y, Lian B. Diversity of endolithic fungal communities in dolomite and limestone rocks from Nanjiang Canyon in Guizhou karst area, China. Can J Microbiol. 2012;58: 685–693. 10.1139/w2012-042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Wollenzien U, de Hoog GS, Krumbein WE, Urzí C. On the isolation of microcolonial fungi occurring on and in marble and other calcareous rocks. Sci Total Environ. 1995;167: 287–294. 10.1016/0048-9697(95)04589-S [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Gómez-Cornelio S, Ortega-Morales O, Morón-Ríos A, Reyes-Estebanez M, de la Rosa-García S. Changes in fungal community composition of biofilms on limestone across a chronosequence in Campeche, Mexico. Acta Botánica Mex. 2016;117: 59–77. Available: https://www.redalyc.org/html/574/57447920006/ [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Sterflinger K, Krumbein WE. Dematiaceous fungi as a major agent for biopitting on Mediterranean marbles and limestones. Geomicrobiol J. 1997;14: 219–230. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Gorbushina AA, Krumbein WE, Hamman CH, Panina L, Soukharjevski S, Wollenzien U. Role of black fungi in color change and biodeterioration of antique marbles. Geomicrobiol J. 1993;11: 205–221. 10.1080/01490459309377952 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Dornieden T, Gorbushina AA, Krumbein WE. Patina Of Microbes and Art. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2000. pp. 105–119. 10.1007/978-1-4615-4239-1_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Crous PW, Schumacher RK, Wingfield MJ, Lombard L, Giraldo A, Christensen M, et al. Fungal systematics and evolution: FUSE 1. Sydowia. 2015;67: 81–118. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Jam Ashkezari S, Fotouhifar B. Diversity of endophytic fungi of common yew (Taxus baccata L.) in Iran. Mycol Prog. 2017;16: 247–256. 10.1007/s11557-017-1274-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Badalyan SM, Szafranski K, Hoegger PJ, Navarro-Gonzaléz M, Majcherczyk A, Kües U. New Armenian wood-associated coprinoid mushrooms: Coprinopsis strossmayeri and Coprinellus aff. radians. Diversity. 2011;3: 136–154. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/3/1/136 [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Pastirčáková K, Pastirčák M. Erysiphe platani causing powdery mildew of London plane in Hungary. Acta Phytopathol Entomol Hungarica. 2008;43: 31–36. 10.1556/APhyt.43.2008.1.4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Glushakova AM, Kachalkin A V. Endophytic yeasts in Malus domestica and Pyrus communis fruits under anthropogenic impact. Microbiology. 2017;86: 128–135. 10.1134/S0026261716060102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Crous PW, Schumacher RK, Wingfield MJ, Akulov A, Denman S, Roux J, et al. New and interesting fungi. 1. Fungal Syst Evol. 2018;1: 169–215. Available: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/wfbi/fuse/2018/00000001/00000001/art00009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Wijayawardene NN, Camporesi E, Bhat DJ, Song YU, Chethana KWT, Chukeatirote E, et al. Macrodiplodiopsis in Lophiostomataceae, Pleosporales. 2014;176: 192–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Inácio J, Portugal L, Spencer-Martins I, Fonseca A. Phylloplane yeasts from Portugal: seven novel anamorphic species in the Tremellales lineage of the Hymenomycetes (Basidiomycota) producing orange-coloured. FEMS Yeast Res. 2005;5: 1167–1183. Available: https://academic.oup.com/femsyr/article-abstract/5/12/1167/535391 10.1016/j.femsyr.2005.05.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Prior R, Feige A, Begerow D. Antagonistic activity of the phyllosphere fungal community. Sydowia. 2017;69: 183–198. Available: https://www.verlag-berger.at/fileadmin/media_data/ebooks/20-Sydowia-69_Prior.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Kemler M, Witfeld F, Begerow D, Yurkov A. Phylloplane Yeasts in Temperate Climates Yeasts in Natural Ecosystems: Diversity. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 171–197. 10.1007/978-3-319-62683-3_6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Madhour A, Anke H, Mucci A, Davoli P, Weber RW. Biosynthesis of the xanthophyll plectaniaxanthin as a stress response in the red yeast Dioszegia (Tremellales, Heterobasidiomycetes, Fungi). Phytochemistry. 2005;66: 2617–2626. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031942205004577 10.1016/j.phytochem.2005.09.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Malíček J, Palice Z, Vondrák J. New Lichen Records and Rediscoveries from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Herzogia. 2015;27: 257–284. 10.13158/heia.27.2.2014.257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Dietrich M. Die Flechtenvielfalt der mittelalterichen Museggmauer und ihren Türme in Luzern (Zentralschweiz): 100 weitere Arten. Meylania. 2015;56: 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Ariño X, Saiz-Jimenez C. Deterioration of the Elephant tomb (Necropolis of Carmona, Seville, Spain). Int Biodeterior Biodegrad. 1997;40: 233–239. 10.1016/S0964-8305(97)00034-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Sanchez-Moral S, Cañaveras JC, Benavente D, Fernandez-Cortes A, Cuezva S, Elez J, et al. A study on the state of conservation of the Roman Necropolis of Carmona (Sevilla, Spain). J Cult Herit. 2018;34: 185–197. 10.1016/j.culher.2018.02.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Baldasici O, Barbu-Tudoran L. Structural and elemental analysis of biodegraded artifacts. Ann Rom Soc Cell Biol. 2012;17: 213–219. Available: http://www.annalsofrscb.ro/archive/17 2/33.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Uher B. Spatial distribution of cyanobacteria and algae from the tombstone in a historic cemetery in Bratislava, Slovakia. Fottea. 2008;9: 81–92. Available: http://fottea.czechphycology.cz/pdfs/fot/2009/01/07.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Darienko T, Gruber M, Pröschold T, Schagerl M. Terrestrial microalgae on Viennese buildings [Internet]. Wien: Universität Wien, Projektreport; Vienna; 2013. Available: https://www.wien.gv.at/umweltschutz/nachhaltigkeit/pdf/gruber-markus-2013.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Meehan CJ, Beiko RG. A phylogenomic view of ecological specialization in the Lachnospiraceae, a family of digestive tract-associated bacteria. Genome Biol Evol. 2014;6: 703–713. Available: https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article-abstract/6/3/703/580436 10.1093/gbe/evu050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Lagkouvardos I, Lesker TR, Hitch TCA, Gálvez EJC, Smit N, Neuhaus K, et al. Sequence and cultivation study of Muribaculaceae reveals novel species, host preference, and functional potential of this yet undescribed family. Microbiome. 2019;7: 28 10.1186/s40168-019-0637-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Morotomi M, Nagai F, Sakon H, Tanaka R. Paraprevotella clara gen. nov., sp. nov. and Paraprevotella xylaniphila sp. nov., members of the family “Prevotellaceae” isolated from human faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009;59: 1895–1900. 10.1099/ijs.0.008169-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Biddle A, Stewart L, Blanchard J, Leschine S. Untangling the genetic basis of fibrolytic specialization by Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in diverse gut communities. Diversity. 2013;5: 627–640. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/5/3/627/htm [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Bohr URM, Primus A, Zagoura A, Glasbrenner B, Wex T, Malfertheiner P. A Group-Specific PCR Assay for the Detection of Helicobacteraceae in Human Gut. Helicobacter. 2002;7: 378–383. 10.1046/j.1523-5378.2002.00113.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Hedlund BP, Derrien M. Akkermansiaceae fam. nov. Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015. pp. 1–1. 10.1002/9781118960608.fbm00257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Stover CK, Pham XQ, Erwin AL, Mizoguchi SD, Warrener P, Hickey MJ, et al. Complete genome sequence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1, an opportunistic pathogen. Nature. 2000;406: 959–964. 10.1038/35023079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Dréno B, Pécastaings S, Corvec S, Veraldi S, Khammari A, Roques C. Cutibacterium acnes (Propionibacterium acnes) and acne vulgaris: a brief look at the latest updates. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2018;32: 5–14. 10.1111/jdv.15043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Kampfer P, Lodders N, Martin K, Falsen E. Massilia oculi sp. nov., isolated from a human clinical specimen. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62: 364–369. 10.1099/ijs.0.032441-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Crespo Erchiga V, Ojeda Martos A, Vera Casaño A, Crespo Erchiga A, Sanchez Fajardo F. Malassezia globosa as the causative agent of pityriasis versicolor. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143: 799–803. 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2000.03779.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Trouillas FP, Gubler WD. Pathogenicity of Diatrypaceae species in grapevines in California. Plant Dis. 2010;94: 867–872. 10.1094/PDIS-94-7-0867 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ana R Lopes

11 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-21352

Tiber’s embankments black patina characterization by Next-Generation Sequencing

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Guerrieri,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Although this study is interesting, some of the criteria publication have not been achieved in particular namely criteria 3, 4 and 5 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication). Thus, the authors are strongly advised to hire a copyeditor. In particular, sections such as Abstract/Results and Discussion must be improved, as referred by the reviewers.

It is important as indicated by reviewers to give more detail in the material and methods section “DNA extraction, library preparation and sequencing”. In addition to the reviewer’s suggestions I would also advise the authors to indicate the range of the concentration of DNA obtained for the samples. It is also important to know the rarefaction values for Beta diversity.

Discussion must be improved as mentioned by the reviewers. Additionally, I would like to know if we can exclude handling contamination when you discuss the following results: “Considering the low number of reads and the few identified taxa we cannot say that actual bacterial or fungal communites were present in the W samples. The presence of bacteria is due to a conspicuous contamination from the Tiber’s water or from humans frequenting the river’s bank, while the presence of fungal sequences is just linked to the environmental contamination.”?

Because of the negative result mentioned “this allowed, for the first time, to explore the whole structure of a black patina bypassing the culture problem linked to the underestimation of unculturable species and comprising the bacteria that are usually neglected in routinely analyses. The absence in the molecular results of Chroococcus lithophilus, identified through microscope observation, can be linked to the lack of 16S sequences of this species in the databases. Indeed, currently the main limit to the application of NGS to the study of black patinas and, more in general, of subaerial biofilms is linked to the absence in the databases of several environmental microorganisms’ sequences (like cyanobacteria and RIF). This is confirmed by the presence of several unidentified sequences in the obtained results.”. Have you tried to blast/map the unidentified sequences with the 16S sequence of Chroococcus lithophilus from for example ncbi or EzBioCloud?

Minor issues:

Standardize in the text “(g, Chroo…” or “(g. R..)”, but not both;

Standardize in the text “(species A. pullulans)” or “(A. alternata)”, but not both;

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 25 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ana R. Lopes, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the sampling site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

2. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Black patina are common features in monuments and walls around the world. They often associated with substrata where microenvironmental conditions promote the retention of water. They can be broadly classified depending on the dominant process leading to their formation. Earlier studies highlighted the chemical, pollutant-related origin of black crusts, often associated with Sulphur-laden atmosphere and the formation of gypsum layers that harden on the stone upper layers. On the other hand, on the Tropics, the occurrence of biologically-dominated black crust have been recently reported to be predominantly linked to microbial colonization by pigmented organisms synthesizing compounds such as scytonemins and mycosporine-like substances. It appears that the authors have dealt with in this study with latter type of black crusts; they should highlight this in the title. Secondly, I find that the abstract fails to display the main findings. NGS studies about subaerial communities are comparatively less studied than other terrestrial habitats, the authors should take advantage of this gap of knowledge and exploit more their data. Third, the introduction could certainly be improved by adding relevant references that highlight the biological composition of black crust in stone surfaces. I feel that the authors could improve their study by providing more details about the nature on substratum (mineralogy of stone, from bibliographic data), the prevailing microenvironment (from nearly meteorological stations) and orientation of surfaces. I could notice that samples were taken from either Black or White areas (replicates). A this point I am not sure the white-derived samples are originated from a “white platina” or non-colonized (at least by visual inspection) surfaces. A patina normally refers to surface alteration by a number of processes that result on modification of the upper layer, sometimes pure staining (aesthetic) but also chemical transformation of the upper layer. Please clarify this point. Also, please state if they were taken randomly. In addition, indicate how you managed with graffiti that is obvious on the image. Adding arrows to the sampled areas would have the reader to clearly identity the origin of samples. The apparent lack of correspondence of certain organisms not identified by NGS but seen by microscopy could be explained by the non-efficient extraction of nucleic acids, we have seen this in the past with thick-sheathed cyanobacteria.

Overall, I find that the results need be better contrasted with published studies based on both non-culture dependent and culture-dependent studies from epilithic habitats and highlight the main findings. Please also state and provide relevant references as to how this type of NGS-based study can provide relevant information regarding conservation issues. In addition, the conclusion section needs to be enhanced to fully be supported by the results.

Reviewer #2: The authors present an interesting study by analyzing the microbiota of a black patina often found over travertine embankments of Tiber river in Rome. For this reason, Next-Generation sequencing techniques, through Illumina platform, were applied in order to identify and characterize different communities of bacteria, fungi and algae, as a mean to understand the possible effects of these colonial organisms to the studied material. The study is well organized, presents relevant data, especially the statistics results and graphics, and the manuscript is well written. I have only minor comments that can be found in comments below:

Introduction

Line 48 – replace “works of art” for “artworks”

In this section a final paragraph with the study objectives is missing. Please add the objectives of the work to complete well the Introduction section.

Materials and Methods

Line 103 – replace the number “1” for number “2”. In this manuscript “Materials and Methods” are the section number 2.

Results

In sub-sections “3.1 Bacterial Community” and “3.2 Fungal community” please add the percentages of abundance of the described taxa. This is relevant data in such NGS study and is missing on this section.

Discussion

I advise the authors to add an introductory paragraph to this section, instead of starting immediately with the results discussion. It would be good to start with some statement (3-4 lines) regarding the importance of the used methodology to characterize the microbiota communities of the black patina present in such important Cultural Heritage structure, which was actually the aim of this study.

Reviewer #3: I believe that the manuscript by Antonelli et al. “Tiber’s embankments black patina characterization by Next-Generation Sequencing” (ref: PONE-D-19-21352) is a very interesting study concerning the complete metagenomic analysis of black patinas in an important stone monument. In my opinion, the topic is relevant and deserves to be highlighted. I also would like to pinpoint that the application of Shotgun metagenomics is currently rather scarce in the field, thus turning the article highly innovative. I recommend the acceptance of the article after the authors conduct major revisions in the manuscript, and some crucial points are addressed. I´m providing some comments to be taken into consideration by the authors:

(1) Comment: The article should be proofread by an English native speaker.

(2) Comment: The term 18S ITS should be replaced for ITS2-rDNA sub-region, since from my understanding the 18S region (SSU) was not considered during the course of this study.

(3) Introduction section, Lines 49-60 and Lines 75-76.

Comment: Please consider rephrasing these sentences. They are too long and their structure could be improved.

(4) Line 71 and Line 284.

Comment: In line 71. the reference for Pentecost (1992), in this case [45], is missing. In line 284, the reference for Albertano (2012), in this case [18], is also missing. I advise the authors to double check their references along the manuscript and in the references.

(5) Introduction section, Line 64-84.

Comment: This part of the introduction section is only focussed in Phototrophic microorganisms and Fungi. I believe that the role (if any) and presence of bacteria in black patinas (if previously studied), should also be highlighted in this part.

(6) Introduction section, Line 93-95.

Comment: The aims of the study should be clearer.

(7) Introduction section, Line 95-99.

Comment: I believe this part should be moved to the Materials and methods- Sample collection and description sub-section.

(8) Materials and methods section, Line 103. Discussion section, Line 274.

Comment: In line 103, this section should be: 2. Materials and methods. In the current form is displayed as 1. Materials and methods. In line 274, this section should be: 4. Discussion. In the current form lacks numbering.

(9) Materials and methods section; 2.1 Sample collection and description.

Comment: I believe that the manuscript could benefit from the addition of a table displaying the distinct samples IDs and further metadata. The table could also display which samples were able to be studied through the distinct metagenomic methodologies applied.

(10) Materials and methods section; 2.1 Sample collection and description.

Comment: For the microscopical analysis, were the samples randomly selected? What were the criteria for the selection of these samples? Which samples (ID) were studied?

(11) Materials and methods section; 2.2 DNA extraction, library preparation and sequencing.

Comment: Please provide further details regarding the DNA extraction, library preparation and sequencing.

(12) Results section; 3.2 Bacterial community, Lines 204-208.

Comment: This part should be moved to the discussion section.

(13) Results (e.g. Lines 227-230), Discussion (e.g. Lines 341-383) and Figures 4 and 8.

Comment: These parts highlight my main concern with the manuscript. In general, the application of the Illumina MiSeq methodology targeting the ITS2 rDNA sub-region does not allow a proper and accurate taxonomic annotation to the species level. I believe that these parts as well as the figures above mentioned, need to highlight a taxonomic annotation at the genus level, and therefore require to be updated. I don´t feel that the discussion bulk will be affected by this decision. However, I do acknowledge that this change will require several parts of the manuscript to be updated.

(14) Figure 6 legend needs further information, namely the distinct COG categories.

(15) Discussion section.

Comment: Given the quality of the results, some parts of the discussion section could be deeper debated. For example, the authors state that some bacteria taxa can be linked to the presence of substances of anthropogenic origin. Pollution is known to act as an ecological pressure on cyanobacterial communities. Could the presence of these cyanobacterial taxa be linked to extremotolerance profiles allowing them to thrive in these conditions? MCF are also known for their tolerance to various environmental factors, could their presence in the B samples also be explained by their high metabolic capacities?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 9;15(1):e0227639. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227639.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Nov 2019

Point-by-point response to reviewer’s comments

Reviewer # 1

We appreciated the challenging quality of the Reviewer 1’s comments that prompted us to

carefully revise the manuscript to clarify experimental details and results in order to increase

its readability and to better support our conclusions.

Specific points

Question 1. Black patina are common features in monuments and walls around the world. They

often associated with substrata where microenvironmental conditions promote the retention of water.

They can be broadly classified depending on the dominant process leading to their formation. Earlier

studies highlighted the chemical, pollutant-related origin of black crusts, often associated with

Sulphur-laden atmosphere and the formation of gypsum layers that harden on the stone upper

layers. On the other hand, on the Tropics, the occurrence of biologically-dominated black crust have

been recently reported to be predominantly linked to microbial colonization by pigmented organisms

synthesizing compounds such as scytonemins and mycosporine-like substances. It appears that the

authors have dealt with in this study with latter type of black crusts; they should highlight this in the

title.

Answer 1. We apologize if the description of black patina, and its differences with black

crusts, were not clearly defined in the introduction. Reviewer 1 raises an important point

and, albeit we feel that the definition “black patina” is already a clear statement on the

biological origin of the alteration, in the new MS we highlighted that black crusts and black

patinas are two distinct deterioration patterns of stone artefacts. Black crusts have a

chemical origin and are defined as “Kind of crust developing generally on areas protected

against direct rainfall or water runoff in urban environment. Black crusts usually adhere firmly

to the substrate. They are composed mainly of particles from the atmosphere, trapped into

a gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) matrix” (Vergès-Belmin V. Illustrated glossary on stone

deterioration. ICOMOS. 2008). The term patina refers to several kinds of alterations, of

organic and inorganic origin, tightly adhering to the substrate. As reported in the

manuscript’s introduction, since the 1990s the term is also used to define an aesthetic

change of rock surfaces linked to the biological colonization. Black patinas are a well-known

biological alteration of stone surfaces studied since the beginning of 1900 in natural

environments. In the field of the conservation of Cultural Heritage several studies covered

this topic in the last decades.

Question 2. Secondly, I find that the abstract fails to display the main findings. NGS studies about

subaerial communities are comparatively less studied than other terrestrial habitats, the authors

should take advantage of this gap of knowledge and exploit more their data.

Answer 2. We thank the Reviewer 1 for this suggestion. The abstract was modified.

Question 3. Third, the introduction could certainly be improved by adding relevant references that

highlight the biological composition of black crust in stone surfaces.

Answer 3. The biological composition of the patina is now better described in the

introduction and further information were added concerning the bacteria composition.

Question 4. I feel that the authors could improve their study by providing more details about the

nature on substratum (mineralogy of stone, from bibliographic data), the prevailing microenvironment

(from nearly meteorological stations) and orientation of surfaces.

Answer 4. We agreed with the Reviewer 1 and the new materials and methods section

contains the data concerning the composition of travertine and thermo-hygrometric trends

registered in the city.

Question 5. I could notice that samples were taken from either Black or White areas (replicates). A

this point I am not sure the white-derived samples are originated from a “white platina” or noncolonized

(at least by visual inspection) surfaces. A patina normally refers to surface alteration by a

number of processes that result on modification of the upper layer, sometimes pure staining

(aesthetic) but also chemical transformation of the upper layer. Please clarify this point.

Answer 5. The Reviewer is right: The term “white” could be confusing. We collected this

powder from apparently not colonized area and not from “white patina”. We modified the

legend of the samples changing “white” in “uncolonized” area and we added a new table

with the ID of the samples and corresponding DNA extraction values (Table S1).

Question 6. Also, please state if they were taken randomly. In addition, indicate how you managed

with graffiti that is obvious on the image. Adding arrows to the sampled areas would have the reader

to clearly identity the origin of samples.

Answer 6. The materials and methods section was clarified as requested and arrows were

added in the figure.

Question 7. The apparent lack of correspondence of certain organisms not identified by NGS but

seen by microscopy could be explained by the non-efficient extraction of nucleic acids, we have

seen this in the past with thick-sheathed cyanobacteria.

Answer 7. We welcomed the comment of the Reviewer and we agree that difficulties in lysis

of specific bacterial sheaths and consequently DNA extraction could be responsible for the

not complete correspondence with the microscopic analyses results. For this reason we

added a specific note concerning this point in the revised manuscript.

Question 8. Overall, I find that the results need be better contrasted with published studies based

on both non-culture dependent and culture-dependent studies from epilithic habitats and highlight

the main findings.

Answer 8. The text was modified as requested.

Question 9. Please also state and provide relevant references as to how this type of NGS-based

study can provide relevant information regarding conservation issues.

Answer 9. We would like to emphasize that this is the first study that apply NGS to the

characterization of black patinas, so no references are available about the relevance of this

technique in the field of conservation. The importance of the obtained data has been

underlined in the text.

Question 10. In addition, the conclusion section needs to be enhanced to fully be supported by the

results.

Answer 10. The conclusion section was extensively revised and we think that now it’s better

supported by the results.

Reviewer # 2

General comment

The authors present an interesting study by analyzing the microbiota of a black patina often found

over travertine embankments of Tiber river in Rome. For this reason, Next-Generation sequencing

techniques, through Illumina platform, were applied in order to identify and characterize different

communities of bacteria, fungi and algae, as a mean to understand the possible effects of these

colonial organisms to the studied material. The study is well organized, presents relevant data,

especially the statistics results and graphics, and the manuscript is well written.

We have been very happy to learn that the Reviewer 2 found the MS “an interesting study”,

“well organized”, that “presents relevant data” and “well written”.

Specific points

Question 1. Introduction. Line 48 – replace “works of art” for “artworks”

Answer 1. The text was modified as indicated.

Question 2. In this section a final paragraph with the study objectives is missing. Please add the

objectives of the work to complete well the Introduction section.

Answer 2. The introduction was improved and the objectives of the work were added

Question 3. Materials and Methods. Line 103 – replace the number “1” for number “2”. In this

manuscript “Materials and Methods” are the section number 2.

Answer 3. The text was modified as indicated.

Question 4. Results. In sub-sections “3.1 Bacterial Community” and “3.2 Fungal community” please

add the percentages of abundance of the described taxa. This is relevant data in such NGS study

and is missing on this section.

Answer 4. We thank the Reviewer 2 for the suggestion. Two tables (one for bacteria and

one for fungi) containing the percentages of abundance for each taxon (averages and

standard deviations) in black patinas and uncolonized stone have been produced as

supplementary inserts.

Question 5. Discussion. I advise the authors to add an introductory paragraph to this section, instead

of starting immediately with the results discussion. It would be good to start with some statement (3-

4 lines) regarding the importance of the used methodology to characterize the microbiota

communities of the black patina present in such important Cultural Heritage structure, which was

actually the aim of this study.

Answer 5. We agree with the Reviewer 2 and an introductory statement was added to the

paragraph.

Reviewer # 3

General comment

I believe that the manuscript by Antonelli et al. “Tiber’s embankments black patina characterization

by Next-Generation Sequencing” (ref: PONE-D-19-21352) is a very interesting study concerning the

complete metagenomic analysis of black patinas in an important stone monument. In my opinion,

the topic is relevant and deserves to be highlighted. I also would like to pinpoint that the application

of Shotgun metagenomics is currently rather scarce in the field, thus turning the article highly

innovative. I recommend the acceptance of the article after the authors conduct major revisions in

the manuscript, and some crucial points are addressed.

We would like to thank the Reviewer 3 for considering our study “highly innovative” and for

his/her comments/suggestions that prompted us to improve the quality of the MS.

Specific points

Question 1. The article should be proofread by an English native speaker.

Answer 1. The manuscript has been proofread by an English native speaker

Question 2. The term 18S ITS should be replaced for ITS2-rDNA sub-region, since from my

understanding the 18S region (SSU) was not considered during the course of this study.

Answer 2. The word "18S ITS" has been replaced with " ITS2-rDNA " in the revised

manuscript

Question 3. Introduction section, Lines 49-60 and Lines 75-76.

Comment: Please consider rephrasing these sentences. They are too long and their structure could

be improved.

Answer 3. The text was modified as suggested.

Question 4. Line 71 and Line 284.

Comment: In line 71. the reference for Pentecost (1992), in this case [45], is missing. In line 284, the

reference for Albertano (2012), in this case [18], is also missing. I advise the authors to double check

their references along the manuscript and in the references.

Answer 4. The manuscript was checked and all the missing references were added.

Question 5. Introduction section, Line 64-84.

Comment: This part of the introduction section is only focused in Phototrophic microorganisms and

Fungi. I believe that the role (if any) and presence of bacteria in black patinas (if previously studied),

should also be highlighted in this part.

Answer 5. We agree with the Reviewer and, although the role of the bacteria in subaerial

biofilms had not been clarified jet, we added a section in the introduction regarding these

microorganisms.

Question 6. Introduction section, Line 93-95.

Comment: The aims of the study should be clearer.

Answer 6. The introduction was modified and the aims of the study were clarified

Question 7. Introduction section, Line 95-99.

Comment: I believe this part should be moved to the Materials and methods- Sample collection and

description sub-section.

Answer 7. The text was modified as indicated.

Question 8. Materials and methods section, Line 103. Discussion section, Line 274.

Comment: In line 103, this section should be: 2. Materials and methods. In the current form is

displayed as 1. Materials and methods. In line 274, this section should be: 4. Discussion. In the

current form lacks numbering.

Answer 8. The text was modified and the paragraph numbers were removed as requested

by the Plos One author’s guidelines

Question 9. Materials and methods section; 2.1 Sample collection and description.

Comment: I believe that the manuscript could benefit from the addition of a table displaying the

distinct samples IDs and further metadata. The table could also display which samples were able to

be studied through the distinct metagenomic methodologies applied.

Answer 9. Reviewer 3 is right. We added a table (Table S1), displaying the distinct sample

IDs, specific amount of DNA extraction, corresponding obtained library and sequencing

quality checkpoint.

Question 10. Materials and methods section; 2.1 Sample collection and description.

Comment: For the microscopical analysis, were the samples randomly selected? What were the

criteria for the selection of these samples? Which samples (ID) were studied?

Answer 10. We apologize if the description of this part of the material and methods section

was not clear. The section “Sample collection and description” was revised and now we

believe that we address the specific concerns regarding the selection of the samples.

Question 11. Materials and methods section; 2.2 DNA extraction, library preparation and

sequencing.

Comment: Please provide further details regarding the DNA extraction, library preparation and

sequencing.

Answer 11. The section “DNA extraction” in material and methods was added with more

detailed information, whereas the sections “Sample collection and description” and

“Sequencing Data Analysis” were revised.

Question 12. Results section; 3.2 Bacterial community, Lines 204-208.

Comment: This part should be moved to the discussion section.

Answer 12. The text was modified as suggested.

Question 13. Results (e.g. Lines 227-230), Discussion (e.g. Lines 341-383) and Figures 4 and 8.

Comment: These parts highlight my main concern with the manuscript. In general, the application of

the Illumina MiSeq methodology targeting the ITS2 rDNA sub-region does not allow a proper and

accurate taxonomic annotation to the species level. I believe that these parts as well as the figures

above mentioned, need to highlight a taxonomic annotation at the genus level, and therefore require

to be updated. I don´t feel that the discussion bulk will be affected by this decision. However, I do

acknowledge that this change will require several parts of the manuscript to be updated.

Answer 13. The figures were modified as requested and the Results and discussion

sections were updated

Question 14. Figure 6 legend needs further information, namely the distinct COG categories.

Answer 14. The revised version of Figure 6 contains the descriptions for each COG

category.

Question 15. Discussion section.

Comment: Given the quality of the results, some parts of the discussion section could be deeper

debated. For example, the authors state that some bacteria taxa can be linked to the presence of

substances of anthropogenic origin. Pollution is known to act as an ecological pressure on

cyanobacterial communities. Could the presence of these cyanobacterial taxa be linked to

extremotolerance profiles allowing them to thrive in these conditions? MCF are also known for their

tolerance to various environmental factors, could their presence in the B samples also be explained

by their high metabolic capacities?

Answer 15. The discussions were modified as requested. Two paragraphs concerning the

cellular and metabolic peculiarities of cyanobacteria and MCF were added

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point by point response Antonelli et al.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Ana R Lopes

18 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-21352R1

Characterization of black patina from the Tiber River embankments using Next-Generation Sequencing

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Guerrieri,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Although the authors addressed most of the previous reviewers’ comments there are still some minor issues that need to be addressed, in order to fulfill the criteria to publish in PLOS ONE. In particular, improve the manuscript keywords, avoid redundant information. The second aim described in the introduction does not need a new paragraph, include it in the previous paragraph. Please also indicate the place/laboratory where the Illumina sequencing was performed (in line 165). The sentence given in lines 374-376 “The fact that these microorganisms have never before been reported in black patinas on stone artifacts is most likely due to the techniques routinely used in the field of cultural heritage, which are often not appropriate for their detection or identification.” must be properly supported, add a reference please.

Minor issues:

Include the sentences in lines 208-209 and 210-211 in the previous paragraph;

Line 140, Please replace “Twenty samples of black patina (B) and twenty controls (U) were used..” by “Twenty samples of black patina (B) and twenty controls (uncolonized region, U) were used…”;

Figure 3 and 4, include the color representing each sample in the PCoA biplot;

Figure 5 the species identified should be in italic;

Improve the graphics presented in figure 7 and 8, avoid the background colors;

The sentences from line 491-494 could be included in the previous paragraph. Moreover the sentence must be improved, it is not clear what the authors are reporting.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 01 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ana R. Lopes, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have made several improvements to the manuscript and I believe it is now ready for publication. All suggested comments have been fully addressed, as well as other important issues have been corrected and improved. I have no further comments on this work.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 9;15(1):e0227639. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227639.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Dec 2019

Object: Resubmission Manuscript PONE-D-19-21352R1

Dear Editor Ana R. Lopes,

We thank you for accepting with minor revision our manuscript entitled “Characterization of black patina from the Tiber River embankments using Next-Generation Sequencing” to PLOS ONE.

We feel that we have addressed all the minor issues and in particular:

- The manuscript keywords are now improved

- The laboratory where the Illumina sequencing was performed was added

- Two new references were added to support the conclusions (Sterflinger K, Piñar G. Microbial deterioration of cultural heritage and works of art - Tilting at windmills? Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97: 9637–9646. doi:10.1007/s00253-013-5283-1;

Ricci S, De Leo F, Urzì C, Guerrieri F, Antonelli F. Advantages of a multidisciplinary approach in the study and the characterisation of black patinas. In: Macchia A, Masini N, La Russa MF, Prestileo F, editors. Dialogues in Cultural heritage, Books of Abstracts of the 6th YOCOCU Conference. Matera: YOCOCU, CNR – IBAM (Istituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali); 2018. pp. 277–280)

- Figure 7 and 8 were re-drawn

The authors all concur with this submission and affirm that the material presented in this manuscript has not been previously reported and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Additionally, the authors have no conflicting financial interests to disclose.

Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,

Sincerely,

Francesca Guerrieri

Federica Antonelli

Decision Letter 2

Ana R Lopes

26 Dec 2019

Characterization of black patina from the Tiber River embankments using Next-Generation Sequencing

PONE-D-19-21352R2

Dear Dr. Guerrieri,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Ana R. Lopes, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ana R Lopes

27 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-21352R2

Characterization of black patina from the Tiber River embankments using Next-Generation Sequencing

Dear Dr. Guerrieri:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ana R. Lopes

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    Rarefaction curves showing the Shannon values (A and B) and phylogenetic diversity (C and D) for ITS (A and C) and 16S rRNA (B and D). Values are grouped according to the type of samples (black patina vs. uncolonized controls) and displayed as box plots each with 500 reads.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Metadata: Distinct sample IDs, specific amount of DNA extraction and corresponding obtained library.

    Red color indicates a failed first quality check, whereas an asterisk (*) shows the samples excluded after rarefaction curve analysis.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Average taxonomic abundance (with standard deviation) for each bacterial family in uncolonized controls and black patina samples.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Taxonomic assignment inferred by BLAST on the NCBI 16S ribosomal sequence database of unclassified reads at the level of phylum (unclassified cyanobacteria) and kingdom (unclassified bacteria).

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Average taxonomic abundance (with standard deviation) for each fungal genus in uncolonized controls and black patina samples.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point by point response Antonelli et al.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are available from the NCBI database (accession number PRJNA553109)


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES