
Citation: Volodymyr Ivanov, Viktor Stabnikov, Olena Stabnikova, Anatoliy Salyuk, Evhenii Shapovalov, Zubair Ahmed, Joo Hwa Tay. Iron-containing clay and hematite iron ore in slurry-phase anaerobic digestion of chicken manure[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(5): 821-832. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.5.821
[1] | Jawad Ahmad, Osama Zaid, Muhammad Shahzaib, Muhammad Usman Abdullah, Asmat Ullah, Rahat Ullah . Mechanical properties of sustainable concrete modified by adding marble slurry as cement substitution. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(3): 343-358. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021022 |
[2] | Falah Mustafa Al-Saraireh . Cold-curing mixtures based on biopolymer lignin complex for casting production in single and small-series conditions. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(5): 876-890. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023047 |
[3] | Felipe Bastos, Adeildo Cabral, Perboyre Alcântara, Lino Maia . Study case about the production of masonry concrete blocks with CDW and kaolin mining waste. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(6): 990-1004. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021060 |
[4] | Witsanu Loetchantharangkun, Ubolrat Wangrakdiskul . Combination of rice husk ash, bagasse ash, and calcium carbonate for developing unglazed fired clay tile. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(3): 434-452. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021027 |
[5] | Laila H. Abdel-Rahman, Ahmed M. Abu-Dief, Badriah Saad Al-Farhan, Doaa Yousef, Mohamed E. A. El-Sayed . Kinetic study of humic acid adsorption onto smectite: The role of individual and blend background electrolyte. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(6): 1176-1190. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.6.1176 |
[6] | Krzysztof Gargul . Ammonia leaching of slag from direct-to-blister copper smelting technology. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(5): 565-580. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.5.565 |
[7] | Denise Arrozarena Portilla, Arturo A. Velázquez López, Rosalva Mora Escobedo, Hernani Yee Madeira . Citrate coated iron oxide nanoparticles: Synthesis, characterization, and performance in protein adsorption. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(5): 991-1012. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024047 |
[8] | Natthakitta Piyarat, Ubolrat Wangrakdiskul, Purinut Maingam . Investigations of the influence of various industrial waste materials containing rice husk ash, waste glass, and sediment soil for eco-friendly production of non-fired tiles. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(3): 469-485. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021029 |
[9] | Rakesh Kumar . Aluminium/iron reinforced polyfurfuryl alcohol resin as advanced biocomposites. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(3): 908-915. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.3.908 |
[10] | Aleksander Panichkin, Alma Uskenbayeva, Aidar Kenzhegulov, Axaule Mamaeva, Akerke Imbarova, Balzhan Kshibekova, Zhassulan Alibekov, Didik Nurhadiyanto, Isti Yunita . Assessment of the effect of small additions of some rare earth elements on the structure and mechanical properties of castings from hypereutectic chromium white irons. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(3): 517-540. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023029 |
Interaction of the gut microbiota with the host requires proteins that are on the cell surface to form and maintain interactions with host cells and tissues. These interactions are important for infection by pathogens and for the symbiotic relationships between the normal gut microbiota and the host. In recent years, many of these surface proteins have been found to be identical to cytoplasmic enzymes and chaperones. They belong to a larger group of proteins with multiple functions called moonlighting proteins. Moonlighting proteins are multifunctional proteins in which a single polypeptide chain performs two or more physiologically relevant biochemical or biophysical functions [1]. Hundreds have been identified and are described further in the online MoonProt Database (moonlightingproteins.org) [2]. Over 100 are cytoplasmic proteins that have a second function on the cell surface, often as adhesins that bind to host cells and tissues [3],[4] (Figure 1). This mini-review focuses on intracellular proteins that moonlight on the cell surface of bacterial and eukaryotic gut microbiota.
Dozens of intracellular proteins have been found on the surface of gut microbiota where they interact with host cell surface receptors, ECM, plasminogen or other proteins. These proteins are found to be moonlighting in many types of gut microbiota - pathogens and commensal bacteria, including both Gram negative and Gram positive species, yeast, and an amoeba.
One of the most commonly found intracellular/surface moonlighting proteins in pathogenic bacteria is Hsp60, a chaperone involved in protein folding. In the gut microbiome, it is also used on the cell surface as an adhesin in several species that cause diarrhea and other, sometimes serious or even lethal, complications. [5]–[8] (Table 1). The Gram positive spore forming Clostridium difficile (CDI or C-dif), causes tens of thousands of deaths in the US each year. Helicobacter pylori is a Gram negative bacterium that can be a normal part of the stomach biome but can also lead to chronic gastritis, ulcers and stomach cancer. The Gram negative Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium is an intracellular pathogen that causes food poisoning, salmonellosis, which is often spread by eating contaminated meat, eggs, or milk. Listeria monocytogenes is transmitted in contaminated unpasteurized dairy products and the reason pregnant women are recommended not to eat soft cheeses, such as brie, because it can cause meningitis in newborns. In addition to Hsp60 [9], Listeria uses another intracellular protein, alcohol acetaldehyde dehydrogenase [10], as an adhesin and Ami autolysin, a cell surface enzyme that cleaves cell wall glycopeptides, in a second role as an adhesin to mammalian cells [11].
Cytoplasmic Function | Cell Surface Function | Reference | |
Bifidobacteria | |||
Bile salt hydrolase | hydrolase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
DnaK | chaperone | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen | 19,20 |
Glutamine synthetase | synthetase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Phosphoglycerate mutase | mutase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Lactobacillus johnsonii | |||
Ef-Tu | elongation factor | Binds human cells and mucins | 17 |
Hsp60 | chaperone | binds mucins and epithelial cells | 16 |
Lactobacillus crispatus | |||
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen and laminin | 13 |
Glucose 6-phosphate isomerase | isomerase | binds laminin, collagen | 15 |
Glutamine synthetase | synthetase | binds plasminogen, fibronectin, laminin, collagen | 15 |
Lactobacillus plantarum | |||
Enolase | hydratase | Binds fibronectin | 12 |
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds mucin and Caco2 cells | 18 |
Lactobacillus acidophilus | |||
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds mucin | 14 |
Clostridium difficile | |||
Hsp60 | chaperone | adhesin | 5 |
Helicobacter pylori | |||
Hsp60 | chaperone | adhesin | 6,8 |
Listeria monocytogenes | |||
Alcohol acetaldehyde | dehydrogenase | adhesin | 10 |
Hsp60 chaperone | chaperone | adhesin | 9 |
Ami autolysin | autolysin | adhesin | 11 |
Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium | |||
Hsp60 | chaperonin | adhesin | 7 |
Candida albicans | |||
Alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH1) | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen | 23 |
Fructose bisphosphate aldolase | aldolase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen, fibronectin, laminin | 21,22 |
Peroxisomal catalase (CTA1) | catalase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Phosphoglycerate kinase | kinase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Phosphoglyceromutase | mutase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Transcription elongation factor | elongation factor | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Thiol-specific antioxidant protein | antioxidant | binds plasminogen | 21 |
glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen | 24 |
high-affinity glucose transporter 1 | sugar transporter | complement inhibitor | 25 |
Enteamoeba histolytica | |||
alcohol dehydrogenase (EhADH2) | dehydrogenase | Binds fibronectin, laminin, collagen | 26 |
Homo sapiens (human) | |||
Hsp90α | chaperone | binds to bacterial pathogens | 27 |
Eukaryotic gut microbiota also use intracellular proteins as cell surface adhesins. The yeast Candida albicans is a common part of the gut microbiome and an opportunistic pathogen that can cause candidiasis in immunocompromised individuals. It can also be found on biofilms on implanted medical devices. GAPDH is an enzyme in glycolysis and has many moonlighting functions in many species (Table 1). In C. albicans, it was found to bind plasminogen as well as fibronectin and laminin [21],[22]. Candida also uses several other proteins from glycolysis and gluconeogenesis to bind to plasminogen, enolase [23], fructose 1,6-bisphosphate aldolase [21], phosphoglycerate kinase [21], and phosphoglyceromutase [21]. Glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase, which functions in glycerol accumulation, is also an adhesion [24]. Three proteins involved in protection from alcohol, hydrogen peroxide and antioxidants also bind to plasminogen: alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH1) [21] which protects cells from ethanol, peroxisomal catalase (CTA1) [21], which protects cells from the toxic effects of hydrogen peroxide, and a thiol-specific antioxidant protein [21]. The transcription elongation factor TEF1, which promotes the GTP-dependent binding of aminoacyl-tRNA to the A-site of the ribosome during protein biosynthesis, is also a cell surface plasminogen binding protein [21].
Another protein in Candida albicans has a second function that is involved in modulation of the host's immune system. The high-affinity glucose transporter 1 is a sugar transporter that is also an inhibitor of the host's complement system [25]. It binds to the complement regulators FH and C4BP and protects the yeast from actions of the host's complement cascade.
Entamoeba histolytica is a parasitic amoeba that infects the large bowel. It is estimated to infect about 50 million people worldwide, usually asymptomatically, but it can sometimes enter the epithelial cell layer and result in a lethal infection. It kills more than 50,000 people each year. An intracellular enzyme, alcohol dehydrogenase (EhADH2), which has both alcohol dehydrogenase and acetaldehyde dehydrogenase activity, can be found on the cell surface where it binds proteins of the host's extracellular matrix (ECM), including fibronectin, laminin, and type II collagen [26].
In some cases of gut microbiota interactions with humans, it is the human cell that displays the moonlighting protein. Hsp90 on mammalian cell surfaces is involved in sensing bacterial proteins and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and can aid in initiating an immune response. The cell surface protein JlpA from Campylobacter jejuni, a common cause of food poisoning, interacts directly and specifically with cell surface-exposed Hsp90 on human epithelial cells [27]. Binding to Hsp90 results in the activation of proinflammatory immune responses through signaling pathways involving NF-κB and p38 MAP kinase. It's not clear how the signal crosses the cell membrane because Hsp90 does not contain a transmembrane domain, but there must be at least one additional cell surface protein interacting with Hsp90 that can transduce the signal into the cell.
The moonlighting proteins described above and many other intracellular proteins have also been observed on the surface of these and other species through larger scale proteomics studies of cell surface proteins [31]. Proteomics studies of E. coli identified elongation factor Tu, D-tagatose 1,6-bisphosphate aldolase 2, and isocitrate lyase on the cell surface [32]. Proteins found on the surface of Enterococcus faecalis included elongation factors G and Tu, tyrosine—tRNA ligase, alanine—tRNA ligase, chaperone protein DnaK, phosphoglycerate mutase, pyruvate kinase, fructose 1,6-bisphosphate aldolase, enolase, GAPDH, formate acetyltransferase, and adenylate kinase [33]. Some of these proteins and many others were found on the surface of Listeria monocytogenes, including GroEL, DnaK , GAPDH, enolase, translation elongation factors tsf and G, pyruvate kinase, cysteine synthase, phosphoglycerate kinase, glutamate dehydrogenase, transketolase, branched chain amino acid aminotransferase, glucose 6-phosphate isomerase, and triosphosphate isomerase [34]. Ten proteins often found to moonlight were found on the surface of Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. Lactis KLDS 2.0603, including GroEL, GroES, EF-ts, GAPDH, transaldolase, DnaK, enolase, phosphoglucosamine mutase, bile salt hydrolase, and ribosomal protein L13, and many of the same proteins were found on the surface of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM [41]. Kinoshita and coworkers showed that phosphate buffer can wash over a dozen intracellular proteins from the surface of intestinal lactic acid bacteria, including GroEL, enolase, EF-Tu, phosphoglyceromutase, triosephosphate isomerase, DnaK, phosphofructokinase, and phosphoglycerate kinase, and at least some of these proteins bind to porcine intestinal mucosa [38].
The results of several proteomics studies show that changes in dietary components can cause changes in the expression or secretion of intracellular/surface moonlighting proteins and thereby might have an effect on the strength of interaction of some probiotics with host cells. Celebioglu and coworkers showed that several intracellular proteins are found on the surface of Lactobacillus acidophilus and that growth in the presence of different carbon sources, plant polyphenols, or ‘prebiotics’ (molecules like raffinose that humans cannot digest but intestinal bacteria can) affected the level of expression of several of these proteins on the cell surface, including EF-Tu and pyruvate kinase [39],[42],[43]. In addition, Montoro and coworkers showed that the levels of surface expression of phosphoglucomutase and several other proteins normally found in the cytoplasm varied in strains of the probiotic Lactobacillus pentosus that varied in their strength of adhesion to porcine mucin [44].
Overall, a wide variety of intracellular proteins have been found on the surface of gut microbiota. From the results of the proteomics studies, it was not determined if the proteins perform the same function on the cell surface as in the cell or if they perform a different function there, so additional experiments would be needed before determining if they are true moonlighting proteins. In some cases, observing a protein on the cell surface could be due to challenges in the experimental method, for example, proteins that are interacting firmly with a cytoplasmic domain of a transmembrane protein complex, might be misidentified as being on the cell surface. Further experiments will be needed to confirm if the intracellular proteins identified in the surface proteomics studies also function as adhesins.
The observation of many intracellular proteins with a second function on the cell surface raises several questions.
First, the mechanisms by which these intracellular proteins are secreted while many other highly abundant intracellular proteins remain in the cell is not known. They do not contain signal sequences for secretion through the canonical Sec secretion pathway or other known motifs required for noncanonical secretion pathways. An analysis of one hundred intracellular/surface moonlighting proteins found that the intracellular/surface moonlighting proteins have physicochemical features that are similar to other cytosolic proteins [35].
It is also not known how most of the intracellular/surface moonlighting proteins bind to the cell surface. The secretion pathways and receptors or other mechanisms for binding to the cell surface might be versions of the known pathways and receptors or might involve novel processes. Because many of the intracellular/surface proteins described above are widely conserved in evolution and play important roles in human cells, their catalytic mechanisms might not be good targets in the development of novel therapeutics to treat infections. Instead, elucidating how these proteins are secreted and bound to the bacterial cell surface might lead to the identification of processes and proteins that could serve as targets for therapeutics.
Many of the intracellular proteins found to be adhesins on pathogens are homologues of proteins found to be adhesins on the surface of probiotic species, for example Hsp60. This might help explain why some probiotics appear to be able to compete with or crowd out pathogenic species. This use of homologous proteins by pathogens and probiotics also means that it would be important to find treatments that affect only those protein homologues in the pathogens and not in the probiotic species, or perhaps it would be possible to find a way to use these proteins to help probiotic species to displace pathogens and improve the balance of bacterial species in the gut.
It is also interesting that both pathogens and probiotics have cell surface proteins that bind to plasminogen. Plasminogen can be converted to plasmin, an active protease that can be used to degrade host extracellular matrix and basement membrane and thereby enable pathogens to invade nearby tissues [28]–[30], but it's not clear why probiotic species bind plasminogen.
Intracellular/surface moonlighting proteins are used by species described above that can cause serious intestinal infections. For example, Clostridium difficile can cause life-threatening intestinal inflammation and diarrhea and leads to tens of thousands of deaths in the US each year. An imbalance between pathogenic and probiotic species is also associated with inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease), chronic diseases that affect over 1 million people in the US alone and is increasing in prevalence worldwide [36],[37]. Understanding more about intracellular/surface moonlighting proteins, their mechanisms of secretion, their mechanisms for binding to the cell surface, their interactions with the host, and the competition with other species could be important for finding improved methods to prevent or treat many serious infections and chronic diseases of the gut for many people.
[1] |
Andre L, Pauss A, Ribeiro T (2018) Solid anaerobic digestion: state-of-art, scientific and technological hurdles. Bioresource Technol 247: 1027–1037. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.003
![]() |
[2] |
Bujoczek G, Oleszkiewicz J, Sparling R, et al. (2000) High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure. J Agr Eng Res 76: 51–60. doi: 10.1006/jaer.2000.0529
![]() |
[3] |
Ge X, Xu F, Li Y (2016) Solid-state anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: recent progress and perspectives. Bioresource Technol 205: 239–249. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.050
![]() |
[4] |
Yang L, Xu F, Ge X, et al. (2015) Challenges and strategies for solid-state anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sust Energ Rev 44: 824–834. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.002
![]() |
[5] |
Wei P, Mudde RF, Uijttewaal WSJ, et al. (2019) Characterising the two-phase flow and mixing performance in a gas-mixed anaerobic digester: importance for scaled-up applications. Water Res 149: 86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.077
![]() |
[6] |
Wang H, Tao Y, Temudo M, et al. (2015) An integrated approach for efficient biomethane production from solid bio-wastes in a compact system. Biotechnol Biofuels 8: 62. doi: 10.1186/s13068-015-0237-8
![]() |
[7] | Marks PJ, Wujcik WJ, Loncar AF (1994) Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0. Available from: https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-14.html. |
[8] |
Vamini B, Vianney T, Jo YS (2017) Water for small-scale biogas digesters in Sub-Saharan Africa. GCB Bioenergy 9: 339–357. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12339
![]() |
[9] |
Rajagopal R, Massé DI, Singh G (2013) A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresource Technol 143: 632–641. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.030
![]() |
[10] |
Yenigun O, Demirel B (2013) Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review. Process Biochem 48: 901–911. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2013.04.012
![]() |
[11] |
Niu Q, Qiao W, Qiang H, et al. (2013) Mesophilic methane fermentation of chicken manure at a wide range of ammonia concentration: stability, inhibition and recovery. Bioresource Technol 137: 358–367. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.080
![]() |
[12] |
Niu Q, Kubota K, Qiao W, et al. (2015) Effect of ammonia inhibition on microbial community dynamic and process functional resilience in mesophilic methane fermentation of chicken manure. J Chem Technol Biot 90: 2161–2169. doi: 10.1002/jctb.4527
![]() |
[13] | Salyuk AI, Zhadan SO, Shapovalov EB (2014) Thermophilic methane digestion of chicken manure. Ukrainian Food J 3: 587–594. |
[14] | Salyuk AI, Zhadan SO, Shapovalov EB (2015) Thermophilic methane fermentation of chicken manure in a wide range of substrate moisture contents. J Food Packag Sci Tech Technol 4: 36–40. |
[15] |
Zhang W, Lau A (2007) Reducing ammonia emission from poultry manure composting via struvite formation. J Chem Technol Biot 82: 598–602. doi: 10.1002/jctb.1701
![]() |
[16] |
Krakat N, Demirel B, Anjum R (2017) Methods of ammonia removal in anaerobic digestion: a review. Water Sci Technol 76: 1925–1938. doi: 10.2166/wst.2017.406
![]() |
[17] | Zhang L, Lee Y, Jahng D (2012) Ammonia stripping for enhanced biomethanization of piggery wastewater. J Hazard Mater 199: 36–42. |
[18] |
Surmeli RO, Bayrakdar A, Calli B (2017) Removal and recovery of ammonia from chicken manure. Water Sci Technol 75: 2811–2817. doi: 10.2166/wst.2017.116
![]() |
[19] |
Markou G (2015) Improved anaerobic digestion performance and biogas production from poultry litter after lowering its nitrogen content. Bioresource Technol 196: 726–730. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.067
![]() |
[20] |
Abouelenien F, Fujiwara W, Namba Y, et al. (2010) Improved methane fermentation of chicken manure via ammonia removal by biogas recycle. Bioresource Technol 101: 6368–6373. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.071
![]() |
[21] |
Laureni M, Palatsi J, Llovera M, et al. (2013) Influence of pig slurry characteristics on ammonia stripping efficiencies and quality of the recovered ammonium-sulfate solution. J Chem Technol Biot 88: 1654–1662. doi: 10.1002/jctb.4016
![]() |
[22] |
Alshameri A, He H, Zhu J, et al. (2018) Adsorption of ammonium by different natural clay minerals: characterization, kinetics and adsorption isotherms. Appl Clay Sci 159: 83–93. doi: 10.1016/j.clay.2017.11.007
![]() |
[23] |
Zhu R, Chen Q, Zhou Q, et al. (2016) Adsorbents based on montmorillonite for contaminant removal from water: A review. Appl Clay Sci 123: 239–258. doi: 10.1016/j.clay.2015.12.024
![]() |
[24] |
Borisover M, Davis JA (2015) Adsorption of inorganic and organic solutes by clay minerals, In: Tournassat C, Steefel C, Bourg I, et al., Natural and Engineered Clay Barriers, Elsevier 6: 33–70. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100027-4.00002-4
![]() |
[25] |
Khosravi A, Esmhosseini M, Khezri S (2014) Removal of ammonium ion from aqueous solutions using natural zeolite: kinetic, equilibrium and thermodynamic studies. Res Chem Intermediat 40: 2905–2917. doi: 10.1007/s11164-013-1137-9
![]() |
[26] |
Rožić M, Cerjan-Stefanovic S, Kurajica S, et al. (2000) Ammonical nitrogen removal from water by treatment with clays and zeolites. Water Res 34: 3675–3681. doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00113-5
![]() |
[27] | Ma JY, Pan JT, Gao TL, et al. (2016) Enhanced anaerobic digestion of chicken manure by bentonite addition. Res Environ Sci 29: 442–448. |
[28] |
Chen H, Awasthi MK, Liu T, et al. (2018) Influence of clay as additive on greenhouse gases emission and maturity evaluation during chicken manure composting. Bioresource Technol 266: 82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.073
![]() |
[29] |
Ivanov V, Stabnikov V, Guo CH, et al. (2014) Wastewater engineering applications of BioIronTech process based on the biogeochemical cycle of iron bioreduction and (bio)oxidation. AIMS Environ J 1: 53–66. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2014.2.53
![]() |
[30] |
Ivanov V, Stabnikov V, Tay JH (2018) Removal of the recalcitrant artificial sweetener sucralose and its by-products from industrial wastewater using microbial reduction/oxidation of iron. ChemEngineering 2: 37. doi: 10.3390/chemengineering2030037
![]() |
[31] |
Stabnikov VP, Tay STL, Tay JH, et al. (2004) Effect of iron hydroxide on phosphate removal during anaerobic digestion of activated sludge. Appl Biochem Micro 40: 376–380. doi: 10.1023/B:ABIM.0000033914.52026.e5
![]() |
[32] |
Binner I, Dultz S, Schellhorn M, et al. (2017) Potassium adsorption and release properties of clays in peat-based horticultural substrates for increasing the cultivation safety of plants. Appl Clay Sci 145: 28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.clay.2017.05.013
![]() |
[33] | Visser A, Nozhevnikova AN, Lettinga G (1993) Sulphide inhibition of methanogenic activity at various pH levels at 55 ℃. J Chem Technol Biot 57: 9–14. |
[34] |
Koster IW, Rinzema A, De Vegt AL, et al. (1986) Sulfide inhibition of the methanogenic activity of granular sludge at various pH levels. Water Res 20: 1561–1567. doi: 10.1016/0043-1354(86)90121-1
![]() |
[35] | Muhlbauer RV, Swestka RJ, Burns RT, et al. (2008) Development and testing of a hydrogen sulfide detection system for use in swine housing. ASABE 6: 084203. |
[36] | Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2005) Available from: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hydrogensulfide/hazards.html. |
[37] | Yuzir A, Yaacob SS, Tijani H, et al. (2017) Addition of ferric chloride in anaerobic digesters to enhance sulphide removal and methanogenesis. Desalin Water Treat 79: 64–72. |
[38] | Stabnikov VP, Ivanov VN (2006) The effect of various iron hydroxide concentrations on the anaerobic fermentation of sulfate-containing model wastewater. Appl Biochem Micro 42: 284–288. |
[39] |
Stabnikov V, Ivanov V (2017) Biotechnological production of biogrout from iron ore and cellulose. J Chem Technol Biot 92: 180–187. doi: 10.1002/jctb.4989
![]() |
[40] | Stucki JW (2006) Properties and behaviour of iron in clay minerals, In: Bergaya F, Theng BKG, Lagaly G, Developments in Clay Science, Elsevier Science Ltd 1: 423–475. |
[41] | Markos N (2003) Bentonite-iron interactions in natural occurrences and in laboratory-the effects of the interactions on the properties of bentonite: a literature survey. Working report 2003-55, Posiva Oy. |
[42] |
Mueller B (2015) Experimental interactions between clay minerals and bacteria: a review. Pedosphere 25: 799–810. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(15)30061-8
![]() |
[43] |
Kostka JE, Dalton DD, Skelton H, et al. (2002) Growth of iron (Ⅲ)-reducing bacteria on clay minerals as the sole electron acceptor and comparison of growth yields on a variety of oxidized iron forms. Appl Environ Microbiol 68: 6256–6262. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.12.6256-6262.2002
![]() |
[44] | Ahmed Z, Ivanov V, Hyun SH, et al. (2001) Effect of divalent iron on methanogenic fermentation of fat-containing wastewater. Environ Engrg Res 6:139–146. |
[45] |
Li Z, Wrenn BA, Venosa AD (2006) Effects of ferric hydroxide on methanogenesis from lipids and long-chain fatty acids in anaerobic digestion. Water Environ Res 78: 522–530. doi: 10.2175/106143005X73064
![]() |
[46] |
Ivanov V, Stabnikova EV, Stabnikov VP, et al. (2002) Effects of iron compounds on the treatment of fat-containing wastewaters. Appl Biochem Micro 38: 255–258. doi: 10.1023/A:1015475425566
![]() |
[47] |
Bampalioutas K, Vlysidis A, Lyberatos G, et al. (2019) Detoxification and methane production kinetics from three-phase olive mill wastewater using Fenton's reagent followed by anaerobic digestion. J Chem Technol Biot 94: 265–275. doi: 10.1002/jctb.5772
![]() |
[48] |
Baek G, Kim J, Shin SG, et al. (2016) Bioaugmentation of anaerobic sludge digestion with iron-reducing bacteria: process and microbial responses to variations in hydraulic retention time. Appl Microbiol Biot 100: 927–937. doi: 10.1007/s00253-015-7018-y
![]() |
[49] |
Park CM, Novak JT (2013) The effect of direct addition of iron(Ⅲ) on anaerobic digestion efficiency and odor causing compounds. Water Sci Technol 68: 2391–2396. doi: 10.2166/wst.2013.507
![]() |
[50] |
Yue ZB, Ma D, Wang J, et al. (2015) Goethite promoted anaerobic digestion of algal biomass in continuous stirring-tank reactors. Fuel 159: 883–886. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.07.059
![]() |
[51] | Capson-Tojo G, Girard C, Rouez M, et al. (2018) Addition of biochar and trace elements in the form of industrial FeCl3 to stabilize anaerobic digestion of food waste: dosage optimization and long-term study. J Chem Technol Biot 94: 505–515. |
[52] |
García-Balboa C, Cautivo D, Blázque, ML, et al. (2010) Successive ferric and sulphate reduction using dissimilatory bacterial cultures. Water Air Soil Poll 207: 213–226. doi: 10.1007/s11270-009-0130-9
![]() |
[53] |
Wang MW, Zhao Z, Zhang Y (2018) Sustainable strategy for enhancing anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge: driving dissimilatory iron reduction with Fenton sludge. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 6: 2220–2230. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03637
![]() |
[54] |
Flores-Alsina X, Solon K, Mbamba CK, et al. (2016) Modelling phosphorus (P), sulfur (S) and iron (Fe) interactions for dynamic simulations of anaerobic digestion processes. Water Res 95: 370–382. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.012
![]() |
[55] |
Yap SD, Astals S, Lu Y, et al. (2018) Humic acid inhibition of hydrolysis and methanogenesis with different anaerobic inocula. Waste Manage 80: 130–136. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.001
![]() |
[56] |
Khadem AF, Azman S, Plugge CM, et al. (2017) Effect of humic acids on the activity of pure and mixed methanogenic cultures. Biomass Bioenerg 99: 21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.02.012
![]() |
[57] |
Stepanov N, Senko O, Perminova I, et al. (2019) A new approach to assess the effect of various humic compounds on the metabolic activity of cells participating in methanogenesis. Sustainability 11: 3158. doi: 10.3390/su11113158
![]() |
[58] |
Greenland DJ (1971) Interactions between humic and fulvic acids and clays. Soil Sci 111: 34–41. doi: 10.1097/00010694-197101000-00004
![]() |
[59] | Boguta P, D'Orazio V, Senesi N, et al. (2019) Insight into the interaction mechanism of iron ions with soil humic acids. The effect of the pH and chemical properties of humic acids. J Environ Manage 245: 367–374. |
[60] | Tay JH, Tay STL, Ivanov V, et al. (2008) Compositions and methods for the treatment of wastewater and other waste. US Patent 7393452. |
1. | Zeba Usmani, Minaxi Sharma, Yevgen Karpichev, Ashok Pandey, Ramesh Chander Kuhad, Rajeev Bhat, Rajesh Punia, Mortaza Aghbashlo, Meisam Tabatabaei, Vijai Kumar Gupta, Advancement in valorization technologies to improve utilization of bio-based waste in bioeconomy context, 2020, 131, 13640321, 109965, 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109965 | |
2. | Yevhenii Shapovalov, Sergey Zhadan, Günther Bochmann, Anatoly Salyuk, Volodymyr Nykyforov, Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure: A Review, 2020, 10, 2076-3417, 7825, 10.3390/app10217825 | |
3. | Ye B Shapovalov, I L Yakymenko, O M Salavor, K Šebková, The state of the European Union – Ukraine Association Agreement implementation on the air quality, 2022, 1049, 1755-1307, 012044, 10.1088/1755-1315/1049/1/012044 | |
4. | Roman A. Tarasenko, Viktor B. Shapovalov, Stanislav A. Usenko, Yevhenii B. Shapovalov, Iryna M. Savchenko, Yevhen Yu. Pashchenko, Adrian Paschke, Comparison of ontology with non-ontology tools for educational research, 2021, 8, 2833-5473, 82, 10.55056/cte.208 | |
5. | Patrizio Tratzi, Doan Thanh Ta, Zhiping Zhang, Marco Torre, Francesca Battistelli, Eros Manzo, Valerio Paolini, Quanguo Zhang, Chenyeon Chu, Francesco Petracchini, Sustainable additives for the regulation of NH3 concentration and emissions during the production of biomethane and biohydrogen: A review, 2022, 346, 09608524, 126596, 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126596 | |
6. | Yevhenii B. Shapovalov, Viktor B. Shapovalov, Roman A. Tarasenko, Stanislav A. Usenko, Adrian Paschke, A semantic structuring of educational research using ontologies, 2021, 8, 2833-5473, 105, 10.55056/cte.219 | |
7. | Pramod Jadhav, Zaied Bin Khalid, Santhana Krishnan, Prakash Bhuyar, A. W. Zularisam, Abdul Syukor Abd Razak, Mohd Nasrullah, Application of iron-cobalt-copper (Fe-Co–Cu) trimetallic nanoparticles on anaerobic digestion (AD) for biogas production, 2022, 2190-6815, 10.1007/s13399-022-02825-2 | |
8. | Yevhenii B. Shapovalov, Viktor B. Shapovalov, Roman A. Tarasenko, Stanislav A. Usenko, Adrian Paschke, 2021, 10.31812/123456789/4433 | |
9. | Roman A. Tarasenko, Viktor B. Shapovalov, Stanislav A. Usenko, Yevhenii B. Shapovalov, Iryna M. Savchenko, Yevhen Yu. Pashchenko, Adrian Paschke, 2021, 10.31812/123456789/4432 | |
10. | Pramod Jadhav, Zaied Bin Khalid, A.W. Zularisam, Santhana Krishnan, Mohd Nasrullah, The role of iron-based nanoparticles (Fe-NPs) on methanogenesis in anaerobic digestion (AD) performance, 2022, 204, 00139351, 112043, 10.1016/j.envres.2021.112043 | |
11. | Ye B Shapovalov, S A Usenko, A I Salyuk, R A Tarasenko, V B Shapovalov, Sustainability of biogas production: using of Shelford’s law, 2022, 1049, 1755-1307, 012023, 10.1088/1755-1315/1049/1/012023 | |
12. | Xuna Liu, Luqing Qi, Efthalia Chatzisymeon, Ping Yang, Weiyi Sun, Lina Pang, Inorganic additives to increase methane generation during anaerobic digestion of livestock manure: a review, 2021, 19, 1610-3653, 4165, 10.1007/s10311-021-01282-z |
Cytoplasmic Function | Cell Surface Function | Reference | |
Bifidobacteria | |||
Bile salt hydrolase | hydrolase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
DnaK | chaperone | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen | 19,20 |
Glutamine synthetase | synthetase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Phosphoglycerate mutase | mutase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Lactobacillus johnsonii | |||
Ef-Tu | elongation factor | Binds human cells and mucins | 17 |
Hsp60 | chaperone | binds mucins and epithelial cells | 16 |
Lactobacillus crispatus | |||
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen and laminin | 13 |
Glucose 6-phosphate isomerase | isomerase | binds laminin, collagen | 15 |
Glutamine synthetase | synthetase | binds plasminogen, fibronectin, laminin, collagen | 15 |
Lactobacillus plantarum | |||
Enolase | hydratase | Binds fibronectin | 12 |
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds mucin and Caco2 cells | 18 |
Lactobacillus acidophilus | |||
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds mucin | 14 |
Clostridium difficile | |||
Hsp60 | chaperone | adhesin | 5 |
Helicobacter pylori | |||
Hsp60 | chaperone | adhesin | 6,8 |
Listeria monocytogenes | |||
Alcohol acetaldehyde | dehydrogenase | adhesin | 10 |
Hsp60 chaperone | chaperone | adhesin | 9 |
Ami autolysin | autolysin | adhesin | 11 |
Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium | |||
Hsp60 | chaperonin | adhesin | 7 |
Candida albicans | |||
Alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH1) | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen | 23 |
Fructose bisphosphate aldolase | aldolase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen, fibronectin, laminin | 21,22 |
Peroxisomal catalase (CTA1) | catalase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Phosphoglycerate kinase | kinase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Phosphoglyceromutase | mutase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Transcription elongation factor | elongation factor | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Thiol-specific antioxidant protein | antioxidant | binds plasminogen | 21 |
glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen | 24 |
high-affinity glucose transporter 1 | sugar transporter | complement inhibitor | 25 |
Enteamoeba histolytica | |||
alcohol dehydrogenase (EhADH2) | dehydrogenase | Binds fibronectin, laminin, collagen | 26 |
Homo sapiens (human) | |||
Hsp90α | chaperone | binds to bacterial pathogens | 27 |
Cytoplasmic Function | Cell Surface Function | Reference | |
Bifidobacteria | |||
Bile salt hydrolase | hydrolase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
DnaK | chaperone | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen | 19,20 |
Glutamine synthetase | synthetase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Phosphoglycerate mutase | mutase | binds plasminogen | 20 |
Lactobacillus johnsonii | |||
Ef-Tu | elongation factor | Binds human cells and mucins | 17 |
Hsp60 | chaperone | binds mucins and epithelial cells | 16 |
Lactobacillus crispatus | |||
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen and laminin | 13 |
Glucose 6-phosphate isomerase | isomerase | binds laminin, collagen | 15 |
Glutamine synthetase | synthetase | binds plasminogen, fibronectin, laminin, collagen | 15 |
Lactobacillus plantarum | |||
Enolase | hydratase | Binds fibronectin | 12 |
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds mucin and Caco2 cells | 18 |
Lactobacillus acidophilus | |||
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds mucin | 14 |
Clostridium difficile | |||
Hsp60 | chaperone | adhesin | 5 |
Helicobacter pylori | |||
Hsp60 | chaperone | adhesin | 6,8 |
Listeria monocytogenes | |||
Alcohol acetaldehyde | dehydrogenase | adhesin | 10 |
Hsp60 chaperone | chaperone | adhesin | 9 |
Ami autolysin | autolysin | adhesin | 11 |
Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium | |||
Hsp60 | chaperonin | adhesin | 7 |
Candida albicans | |||
Alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH1) | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Enolase | hydratase | binds plasminogen | 23 |
Fructose bisphosphate aldolase | aldolase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
GAPDH | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen, fibronectin, laminin | 21,22 |
Peroxisomal catalase (CTA1) | catalase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Phosphoglycerate kinase | kinase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Phosphoglyceromutase | mutase | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Transcription elongation factor | elongation factor | binds plasminogen | 21 |
Thiol-specific antioxidant protein | antioxidant | binds plasminogen | 21 |
glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase | dehydrogenase | binds plasminogen | 24 |
high-affinity glucose transporter 1 | sugar transporter | complement inhibitor | 25 |
Enteamoeba histolytica | |||
alcohol dehydrogenase (EhADH2) | dehydrogenase | Binds fibronectin, laminin, collagen | 26 |
Homo sapiens (human) | |||
Hsp90α | chaperone | binds to bacterial pathogens | 27 |