Modified High-throughput Sequencing Reveals the Effects of Different Algicides towards Algal Community

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2022-0193

Abstract

Abstract:

It is significant to study the response of algal community towards algicide in water body that suffers from algal bloom，because it can provide theoretical evidence for choosing appropriate algicide in practical application. Recently，high-throughput sequencing technology（HTST）has been gradually utilized in characterizing algal community structure. However，it can not distinguish ‘dead’ and ‘alive’ individuals in the community. In this study，a method of combing propidium monoazide（PMA）pretreatment with HTST and normal HTST were used to investigate the effects of Ca(ClO)₂，CuSO₄ and a commercially available bio-algicide towards the algal community composition，diversity and marked species in a landscape pond containing algal bloom. The results showed that three algicides were all able to efficiently decrease algal density. The results of high-throughput sequencing presented that Monoraphidium genus in Chlorophyta phylum dominated the original water sample，with a relative abundance of 74.34%. Compared with normal sequencing，the sequencing after pre-PMA treatment efficiently revealed the differences of living algal community composition and diversity among different algicides-treated samples. After algicide treatment，the relative abundances of Chlorophyta decreased to 1.50%-24.61%，while the relative abundances of Leptolyngbya boryana（bel-onging to Cyanobacteria phylum）increased to 27.85%-41.52%. 50 mg/L bio-algicide significantly increased Chao1 index，observed species index，Pielou's eveness index and Shannon index，i.e.，increased the diversity，evenness and stability of the alive algal community. Principal coordinate analysis showed that increasing dosages of Ca(ClO)₂ and bio-algicide did not significantly change the community structure of alive algae. Species differences analysis revealed that Chroococcidiopsis sp.，typical adversity environmental dominant algal species，enriched in the alive algal communities of 1.0 mg/L CuSO₄ group and 50 mg/L bio-algicide group. This study proved that PMA pretreatment coupled with HTST is an efficient technology to investigate the influences of different algicides on the alive algal community structures in water body that suffers from algal bloom.

Key words: algicide, PMA, high-throughput sequencing, algal community, diversity

CHEN Yu-jie, ZHENG Hua-bao, ZHOU Xin-yan. Modified High-throughput Sequencing Reveals the Effects of Different Algicides towards Algal Community[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2022, 38(11): 70-79.

Figures/Tables 9

References 24

[1]	李安定, 张彦, 周北海, 等. 城市景观河道中藻华暴发对水体中DOM特征的影响[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2018, 38(1):188-193.
	Li AD, Zhang Y, Zhou BH, et al. Influence of algae blooms on DOM characteristic in water bodies in urban landscape river[J]. Spectrosc Spectr Anal, 2018, 38(1):188-193.
[2]	陈修康. 水环境治理中藻华的危害及其防控技术[J]. 绿色环保建材, 2021(10):27-28.
	Chen XK. Harm of algal bloom and its pretection and control technology in water environment treatment[J]. Green Environ Prot Build Mater, 2021(10):27-28.
[3]	刘佩蕊, 洪喻, 谢兴. 藻华防控方法及灭活与捕获新技术研究进展[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2021, 44(2):171-185.
	Liu PR, Hong Y, Xie X. Research progress on the prevention and control methods of algal bloom and the new technologies for algal capture and inactivation[J]. Environ Sci Technol, 2021, 44(2):171-185.
[4]	Cardoso SJ, Roland F, Loverde-Oliveira SM, et al. Phytoplankton abundance, biomass and diversity within and between Pantanal wetland habitats[J]. Limnologica, 2012, 42(3):235-241. doi: 10.1016/j.limno.2012.01.002 URL
[5]	方雨博, 王趁义, 汤唯唯, 等. 除藻技术的优缺点比较、应用现状与新技术进展[J]. 工业水处理, 2020, 40(9):1-6.
	Fang YB, Wang CY, Tang WW, et al. Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of algae removal technology, application status and new technology progress[J]. Ind Water Treat, 2020, 40(9):1-6.
[6]	黄振兴, 李晨晨, 金旭琴, 等. 除藻剂新洁尔灭与鲱鱼精子DNA的相互作用[J]. 环境化学, 2016, 35(8):1636-1641.
	Huang ZX, Li CC, Jin XQ, et al. Interaction between the algaecide bromogeramine and herring sperm DNA[J]. Environ Chem, 2016, 35(8):1636-1641.
[7]	Manoylov KM. Taxonomic identification of algae(morphological and molecular):species concepts, methodologies, and their implications for ecological bioassessment[J]. J Phycol, 2014, 50(3):409-424. doi: 10.1111/jpy.12183 pmid: 26988316
[8]	Penna A, Casabianca S, Guerra AF, et al. Analysis of phytoplankton assemblage structure in the Mediterranean Sea based on high-throughput sequencing of partial 18S rRNA sequences[J]. Mar Genomics, 2017, 36:49-55. doi: 10.1016/j.margen.2017.06.001 URL
[9]	贺玉晓, 郑永坤, 李卫国, 等. 丹江口水库早春真核浮游植物群落结构特征及其与环境因子的关系[J]. 环境科学学报, 2021, 41(6):2192-2200.
	He YX, Zheng YK, Li WG, et al. Characteristics of eukaryotic phytoplankton community structure in early spring and its relationship with environmental factors in Danjiangkou Reservoir[J]. Acta Sci Circumstantiae, 2021, 41(6):2192-2200.
[10]	乔玲, 常志强, 李健, 等. 基于形态学和高通量测序的海水池塘生态养殖系统中浮游植物多样性比较[J]. 渔业科学进展, 2022, 43(2):32-43.
	Qiao L, Chang ZQ, Li J, et al. Comparison of phytoplankton community diversity in the ecological aquaculture system of a marine pond using morphological analysis and high-throughput sequencing[J]. Prog Fish Sci, 2022, 43(2):32-43.
[11]	Wang Y, Yan Y, Thompson KN, et al. Whole microbial community viability is not quantitatively reflected by propidium monoazide sequencing approach[J]. Microbiome, 2021, 9(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00961-3 pmid: 33478576
[12]	Nocker A, Richter-Heitmann T, Montijn R, et al. Discrimination between live and dead cells in bacterial communities from environmental water samples analyzed by 454 pyrosequencing[J]. Int Microbiol, 2010, 13(2):59-65.
[13]	Joo S, Park P, Park S. Applicability of propidium monoazide(PMA)for discrimination between living and dead phytoplankton cells[J]. PLoS One, 2019, 14(6):e0218924.
[14]	张继周. LNG接收站工程冷排水及余氯排放对海洋生物的影响研究[J]. 科技创新与应用, 2013(17):64.
	Zhang JZ. Study on the impacts of cold water and chlorine residual discharge from LNG terminal project to marine creatures[J]. Technol Innov Appl, 2013(17):64.
[15]	Chen ZW, Song SF, Wen YZ, et al. Toxicity of Cu(II)to the green alga Chlorella vulgaris:a perspective of photosynthesis and oxidant stress[J]. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2016, 23(18):17910-17918. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-6997-2 URL
[16]	Yin K, Wang QN, Lv M, et al. Microorganism remediation strategies towards heavy metals[J]. Chem Eng J, 2019, 360:1553-1563. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.10.226
[17]	卢兰兰, 李根保, 沈银武, 等. 溶藻细菌DC-L5的分离、鉴定及其溶藻特性[J]. 水生生物学报, 2009, 33(5):860-865.
	Lu LL, Li GB, Shen YW, et al. Isolation, identification and characterization of a strain of blue-green algae-lysing bacterium from lake Dianchi[J]. Acta Hydrobiol Sin, 2009, 33(5):860-865. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1035.2009.50860 URL
[18]	黄廷林, 朱倩, 邱晓鹏, 等. 扬水曝气技术对周村水库藻类的控制[J]. 环境工程学报, 2017, 11(4):2255-2260.
	Huang TL, Zhu Q, Qiu XP, et al. Algae control by water-lifting aerator in Zhoucun reservoir[J]. Chin J Environ Eng, 2017, 11(4):2255-2260.
[19]	Zhu F, Yang M, Luo ZX, et al. Bioaccumulation and biotransformation of arsenic in Leptolyngbya boryana[J]. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2020, 27(24):29993-30000. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-09294-y URL
[20]	Assunção J, Amaro HM, Lopes G, et al. Exploration of marine genus Chroococcidiopsis sp. :a valuable source for antioxidant industry?[J]. J Appl Phycol, 2021, 33(4):2169-2187. doi: 10.1007/s10811-021-02435-x URL
[21]	穆海热姆·艾则孜, 阿曼古力·海瓦尔, 帕孜来提·拜合提, 等. 抗重金属土壤微藻F1对Cu²⁺胁迫的耐受生理机制研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(12):2452-2459.
	Muharram E, Amangul H, Pazilat B, et al. Tolerance mechanism of soil microalgae F1 against Cu²⁺ stress isolated from metal mining area in Fuyun County[J]. Acta Bot Boreali Occidentalia Sin, 2017, 37(12):2452-2459.
[22]	Casero MC, Ascaso C, Quesada A, et al. Response of endolithic Chroococcidiopsis strains from the polyextreme Atacama desert to light radiation[J]. Front Microbiol, 2021, 11:614875.
[23]	魏静, 林莉, 潘雄, 等. 不同环境胁迫因子对藻类分子生物学特性的影响研究进展[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2020, 37(4):14-24.
	Wei J, Lin L, Pan X, et al. Research progress about the effects of different environmental stress factors on algae in molecular biology[J]. J Yangtze River Sci Res Inst, 2020, 37(4):14-24.
[24]	董立新, 周绪申. 浮游植物多样性指数在内陆水体污染类型评价中的应用简述[J]. 海河水利, 2017(5):57-60.
	Dong LX, Zhou XS. A breif introduction to the application of phytoplankton diversity indeces in the evaluation of inland water pollution types[J]. Haihe Water Resour, 2017(5):57-60.

物种名称 Species name	Initial /%	CK_NPMA /%	Cl-0.5_NPMA /%	Cl-5.0_NPMA /%	Cu-0.1_NPMA /%	Cu-1.0_NPMA /%	Bio-10_NPMA /%	Bio-50_NPMA /%	CK_PMA /%	Cl-0.5_PMA /%	Cl-5.0_PMA /%	Cu-0.1_PMA /%	Cu-1.0_PMA /%	Bio-10_PMA /%	Bio-50_PMA /%
Leptolyngbya boryana^*	0.27	0.44	0.33	0.49	0.22	0.23	0.50	0.87	20.60	28.01	28.67	41.52	18.18	27.85	28.01
Chamaesiphon minutus^*	<0.01	0.02	<0.01	0.03	<0.01	0.01	<0.01	0.02	0.29	0.62	0.56	0.66	0.79	0.65	1.51
Nannochloris normandinae^**	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.047	0.33	0.73	0.43	0.27	0.12	0.41
Xylochloris irregularis^**	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.04	<0.01	0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.07	0.07	0.61	0.31	0.20	0.24	0.27
Pectinodesmus pectinatus^**	<0.01	0.06	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.14	0.25	0.11	<0.01	0.46	0.18	0.44
Lobosphaera incisa^**	0.57	0.02	0.02	0.18	<0.01	0.08	<0.01	0.18	0.03	0.03	0.16	0.18	<0.01	0.03	0.18
Dinophysis acuta^***	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.56	<0.01	<0.01
Pleurocapsa sp. 04302-00001^*	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.57	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
Tetradesmus obliquus^**	0.04	0.05	0.02	0.04	0.02	0.01	0.04	0.06	0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.10
Neochloris aquatica^**	<0.01	0.02	0.03	0.05	<0.01	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.05	<0.01	0.03	<0.01	<0.01	0.02	<0.01

物种名称 Species name	Initial /%	CK_NPMA /%	Cl-0.5_NPMA /%	Cl-5.0_NPMA /%	Cu-0.1_NPMA /%	Cu-1.0_NPMA /%	Bio-10_NPMA /%	Bio-50_NPMA /%	CK_PMA /%	Cl-0.5_PMA /%	Cl-5.0_PMA /%	Cu-0.1_PMA /%	Cu-1.0_PMA /%	Bio-10_PMA /%	Bio-50_PMA /%
Leptolyngbya boryana^*	0.27	0.44	0.33	0.49	0.22	0.23	0.50	0.87	20.60	28.01	28.67	41.52	18.18	27.85	28.01
Chamaesiphon minutus^*	<0.01	0.02	<0.01	0.03	<0.01	0.01	<0.01	0.02	0.29	0.62	0.56	0.66	0.79	0.65	1.51
Nannochloris normandinae^**	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.047	0.33	0.73	0.43	0.27	0.12	0.41
Xylochloris irregularis^**	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.04	<0.01	0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.07	0.07	0.61	0.31	0.20	0.24	0.27
Pectinodesmus pectinatus^**	<0.01	0.06	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.14	0.25	0.11	<0.01	0.46	0.18	0.44
Lobosphaera incisa^**	0.57	0.02	0.02	0.18	<0.01	0.08	<0.01	0.18	0.03	0.03	0.16	0.18	<0.01	0.03	0.18
Dinophysis acuta^***	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.56	<0.01	<0.01
Pleurocapsa sp. 04302-00001^*	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.57	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
Tetradesmus obliquus^**	0.04	0.05	0.02	0.04	0.02	0.01	0.04	0.06	0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.10
Neochloris aquatica^**	<0.01	0.02	0.03	0.05	<0.01	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.05	<0.01	0.03	<0.01	<0.01	0.02	<0.01