Research article Topical Sections

Bacterial biofilm development during experimental degradation of Melicertus kerathurus exoskeleton in seawater

  • Chitinolytic bacteria are widespread in marine and terrestrial environment, and this is rather a reflection of their principle growth substrate’s ubiquity, chitin, in our planet. In this paper, we investigated the development of naturally occurring bacterial biofilms on the exoskeleton of the shrimp Melicertus kerathurus during its degradation in sea water. During a 12-day experiment with exoskeleton fragments in batch cultures containing only sea water as the growth medium at 18 °C in darkness, we analysed the formation and succession of biofilms by scanning electron microscopy and 16S rRNA gene diversity by next generation sequencing. Bacteria belonging to the γ- and α-Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes showed marked (less or more than 10%) changes in their relative abundance from the beginning of the experiment. These bacterial taxa related to known chitinolytic bacteria were the Pseudolateromonas porphyrae, Halomonas aquamarina, Reinekea aestuarii, Colwellia asteriadis and Vibrio crassostreae. These bacteria could be considered as appropriate candidates for the degradation of chitinous crustacean waste from the seafood industry as they dominated in the biofilms developed on the shrimp’s exoskeleton in natural sea water with no added substrates and the degradation of the shrimp exoskeleton was also evidenced.

    Citation: Nikolina-Alexandra Xaxiri, Eleni Nikouli, Panagiotis Berillis, Konstantinos Ar. Kormas. Bacterial biofilm development during experimental degradation of Melicertus kerathurus exoskeleton in seawater[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(3): 397-412. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.397

    Related Papers:

    [1] Jasmine S. Ritschard, Lea Amato, Yadhu Kumar, Britta Müller, Leo Meile, Markus Schuppler . The role of the surface smear microbiome in the development of defective smear on surface-ripened red-smear cheese. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(4): 622-641. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.4.622
    [2] Inês Barros, Hugo Froufe, George Marnellos, Conceição Egas, Jennifer Delaney, Michele Clamp, Ricardo Serrão Santos, Raul Bettencourt . Metatranscriptomics profile of the gill microbial community during Bathymodiolus azoricus aquarium acclimatization at atmospheric pressure. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(2): 240-260. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.240
    [3] Tatyana V. Polyudova, Daria V. Eroshenko, Vladimir P. Korobov . Plasma, serum, albumin, and divalent metal ions inhibit the adhesion and the biofilm formation of Cutibacterium (Propionibacterium) acnes. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(1): 165-172. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.165
    [4] Almaris N. Alonso . Hydrophobic nature and effects of culture conditions on biofilm formation by the cellulolytic actinomycete Thermobifida fusca. AIMS Microbiology, 2015, 1(1): 1-10. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2015.1.1
    [5] Temitayo O. Olowomofe, J. O. Oluyege, B.I. Aderiye, O. A. Oluwole . Degradation of poly aromatic fractions of crude oil and detection of catabolic genes in hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria isolated from Agbabu bitumen sediments in Ondo State. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(4): 308-323. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.4.308
    [6] Afraa Said Al-Adawi, Christine C. Gaylarde, Jan Sunner, Iwona B. Beech . Transfer of bacteria between stainless steel and chicken meat: A CLSM and DGGE study of biofilms. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(3): 340-358. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.3.340
    [7] Stephen T. Abedon . Active bacteriophage biocontrol and therapy on sub-millimeter scales towards removal of unwanted bacteria from foods and microbiomes. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 649-688. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.649
    [8] Andrey A. Belov, Vladimir S. Cheptsov, Elena A. Vorobyova . Soil bacterial communities of Sahara and Gibson deserts: Physiological and taxonomical characteristics. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(4): 685-710. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.4.685
    [9] Dawn B. Goldsmith, Zoe A. Pratte, Christina A. Kellogg, Sara E. Snader, Koty H. Sharp . Stability of temperate coral Astrangia poculata microbiome is reflected across different sequencing methodologies. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(1): 62-76. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.1.62
    [10] Andrea Gärtner, Jutta Wiese, Johannes F. Imhoff . Diversity of Micromonospora strains from the deep Mediterranean Sea and their potential to produce bioactive compounds. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(2): 205-221. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.2.205
  • Chitinolytic bacteria are widespread in marine and terrestrial environment, and this is rather a reflection of their principle growth substrate’s ubiquity, chitin, in our planet. In this paper, we investigated the development of naturally occurring bacterial biofilms on the exoskeleton of the shrimp Melicertus kerathurus during its degradation in sea water. During a 12-day experiment with exoskeleton fragments in batch cultures containing only sea water as the growth medium at 18 °C in darkness, we analysed the formation and succession of biofilms by scanning electron microscopy and 16S rRNA gene diversity by next generation sequencing. Bacteria belonging to the γ- and α-Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes showed marked (less or more than 10%) changes in their relative abundance from the beginning of the experiment. These bacterial taxa related to known chitinolytic bacteria were the Pseudolateromonas porphyrae, Halomonas aquamarina, Reinekea aestuarii, Colwellia asteriadis and Vibrio crassostreae. These bacteria could be considered as appropriate candidates for the degradation of chitinous crustacean waste from the seafood industry as they dominated in the biofilms developed on the shrimp’s exoskeleton in natural sea water with no added substrates and the degradation of the shrimp exoskeleton was also evidenced.


    1. Introduction

    Marine chitinolytic, or chitinoclastic, bacteria have attracted the scientific interest several decades ago [1], primarily because this single compound is the second most abundant natural polymer after cellulose [2] and one of the major carbon and nitrogen sources for marine bacteria [3,4]. Chitinolytic microorganisms, through the hydrolysis of glycosidic bonds, compensate the vast production of chitin in the marine environment on an annual basis, with the complete mineralization of chitin taking place in 50-140 days in surface oceanic waters [5]. The majority of chitinolytic activity takes place by free-living and animal gut associated bacteria [4,6]. This natural cycling receives excess amounts of chitin, mostly by the accumulation of crustacean exoskeleton waste produced by commercial crustacean farming and seafood industry [7].

    In 2015, 7.3 × 106 tones of crustaceans were produced in marine, coastal and inland aquaculture facilities, with this production showing an increasing tendency over the years [8]. Crustacean farming byproduct, consisting mostly by heads, thorax, claws, and shells, can reach ca. 45% by shellfish weight [9]. Chitin content in this type of waste can be 15-40%. These chitinous waste, reaching up to 40% of chitin [10,11], can cause changes in the trophic state of the aquatic environments where it is discarded, as it is prone to biological degradation by autochthonous bacteria [12] or can even impose health risks due to pathogens colonization [13,14]. It has been proposed that the treatment-for-biodegradation of this anthropogenically produced chitinous material via the activity of efficient chitinolytic bacteria, is maybe one of the best and more ecofriendly ways to tackle this environmental issue [15]. Moreover, this biotechnological process can bring additional commercial benefits such as the production of other useful compounds, e.g. chitosan and chitooligosaccharides, that could be supplied to other industrial sectors such as food and pharmaceutics industries [16].

    The biodegradation of chitinous materials requires demineralization and deproteinization, with some bacteria being able to do both [17]. Some of the known bacterial taxa involved in these steps during the biological treatment of crustacean shell wastes are Lactobacillus spp. Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, P. maltophilia, Pediococcus acidolactici, Bacillus spp. [17] are included in the rare biosphere [18] of the marine environment, where the chitinous exoskeleton wastes are produced and, thus, isolation of similar strains for subsequent inoculation is required. However, natural marine waters are most likely to contain bacterial taxa with various metabolic features that could be selected via certain experimental conditions in order to promote chitinolytic activity.

    The aim of this study was to investigate (a) whether the chitin-containing exoskeleton of a commercial fisheries' shrimp species can be degraded in untreated sea water by naturally occurring bacterial communities; and (b) the diversity, succession and inferred chitinolytic potential of these bacteria. We used experimental unamended sea water batch cultures of the shrimp Melicertus kerathurus exoskeleton and monitored the biofilm formation on the exoskeleton by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) along with the bacterial 16S rRNA gene diversity of the biofilms. Our results depict the most likely bacterial species that could be furthered assessed for the biodegradation of chitin containing animal residuals such as shrimp shell waste.


    2. Materials and methods


    2.1. Experimental setup

    Melicertus kerathurus inhabits marine and estuarine muddy sands between 0 and 90 m. Its average length is 110 to 140 mm and 130 to 170 mm for male and female individuals, respectively. This species is fished for all along the Mediterranean coasts and is an inshore fishery, because of its large size and excellent taste [19]. Freshly fished individuals of the shrimp M. kerathurus were acquired from the local fish market in Volos, central Greece, in February 2017 and they were transported to the laboratory in cooled foam boxes in less than one hour. In the laboratory, under aseptic conditions, the carapace was removed, cut into pieces of ca. 1 cm2 each and rinsed three times by gentle shaking in particle free autoclaved sea water before being added in the sea water batch cultures.

    Twenty five exoskeleton carapace fragments were added to each of the three triplicated batch cultures differing only in the contained sea water: (a) seawater sterilized (coded as S) by double filtration through 0.1 µm in order to promote the growth of indigenous exoskeleton bacteria on the nutrients supplied by the sweater and the exoskeleton itself; (b) seawater filtered through 2 µm (coded as B) in order to promote the growth of natural marine bacteria—in the absence of their grazers—and indigenous exoskeleton bacteria on the nutrients supplied by the sweater and the exoskeleton itself; and (c) artificial seawater (deionized water with 3.5% NaCl, coded as A) in order to promote the growth of indigenous exoskeleton bacteria growth on nutrients originating only by the exoskeleton itself. No inorganic nutrients or organic substrates amendments took place. All batch cultures were incubated in the dark at 18 °C and under constant shaking until macroscopic signs of disintegration of the exoskeleton fragments were obvious (max. 12 days). Sampling of exoskeleton fragments was conducted at 0, 6, 9 and 12 days for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and bacterial diversity analyses.


    2.2. Scanning electron microscopy

    For SEM, the exoskeleton samples were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate solution for 12 h. After fixation, samples were rinsed at both sides with 0.1 M sodium cacodylate solution and dehydration by immersion in a graded alcohol series (30%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 90%, 95% and 100%). The samples were covered with a thin layer of gold using a sputter coater (Bal-tec SCD 004), before their examination under a scanning electron microscope (Cambridge Stereoscan 240). Pictures were taken at various magnification for each sample.


    2.3. Bacterial cell volume

    For each treatment, the dimensions of 100 bacterial cells were measured every two days by the SEM photos. The long axis (D) and the small axis (d) of each bacterial cell were measured from S.E.M. pictures (Figure S1). The bacterial biovolume was calculated by the following formula:

    Cell volume=3.14×(d2)2×D (1)

    2.4. Bacterial diversity

    Each sample consisted of three individual exoskeleton fragments, one from each replicate per treatment, being pooled together immediately before the DNA extraction procedure. Bulk DNA from each of the pooled sample was acquired by using the PowerMax Soil DNA Isolation kit (MoBio, Carlsbad, CA, USA) according to manufacturer's protocol with minor modifications. The Illumina MiSeq 2 × 300 bp platform was used, targeting the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene by using the primer pair S-DBact-0341-b-S-17 (5′-CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG-3′) and S-D-Bact-0785-a-A-21 (5′-GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC-3′) [20]. DNA library preparation and sequencing were performed at the facilities of MRDNA Ltd. (Shallowater, TX, USA) according to standard procedures provided by the manufacturer. All resulting data were processed with the MOTHUR software (v.1.38.0) [21]. Quality control of data analysis included flowgrams denoising by PyroNoise software [22], keeping only the sequences with ≥350 bp with no homopolymers of ≥8 bp. The remaining sequences were aligned in the SILVA 126 database [23]. The sequences were binned into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and were clustered based on average neighbor algorithm at 97% the sequence similarity cut-off [24,25]. The unique OTUs were taxonomically classified by using the SILVA 126 database [23]. The batch of sequences from this study can be accessed at the Short Reads Archive (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra) with accession number SRP134267.


    3. Results


    3.1. Biofilm development

    SEM observations showed that biofilm development progressed gradually already from the sixth day (Figure 1) and reached maturation, i.e. cracks in the exoskeleton fragments and detachment of the biofilm, after 12 days. The bacterial cell biovolume showed different patterns in the three treatments (Figure 2). Its highest values occurred on d4, d2 and d6 for the S, B, and A treatments, respectively, indicating different growth rates of the biofilm populations. After maximal growth, the lowest biovolume was monitored on d9 in all treatments.


    3.2. Bacterial biofilm diversity

    A total of 429 OTUs were found across all samples which belonged to 20 major taxa (phyla or subphyla; Figures S2 and S3). The most abundant taxon was the γ-Proteobacteria, with 36.8% of the total OTU number belonging to this group, followed by the Bacteroidetes (24.0%) and the α-Proteobacteria (17.0%). The rest of the phyla included ≤5.1% of the total OTU number. The number of families (Figure S3) of each major taxon was proportional to the number of OTUs in each group (R2 = 0.86, p < 0.05).

    Figure 1. Bacterial biofilm formation on the exoskeleton of Melicertus kerathurus in sterile (S) (A-C), bacteria-only (B) (D-E) and artificial (A) seawater (G-I) containing treatments at days 6, 9 and 12.

    Figure 2. Bacterial cell biovolume of the biofilm on the exoskeleton of Melicertus kerathurus in the sterile (S), bacteria-only (B) and artificial (A) seawater containing treatments. Bars indicate standard error of mean N = 100 cells per sampling.

    Based on the OTUs abundance, non-metric multidimensional scaling separated the exoskeleton samples at d0 and the artificial water samples (Figure 3). Despite that in every sample a total of 151-285 OTUs occurred (Table 1), the number of most dominant ones (≥75% cumulative relative abundance), was lower in the exoskeleton biofilms after day 6 (3-15 OTUs) compared to the initial exoskeleton sample (23 OTUs). In each sample, the most dominant OTU had ≥16.6% relative abundance.

    Table 1. Biofilm bacterial 16S rRNA gene diversity during experimental degradation of Melicertus kerathurus (Mk) exoskeleton in seawater. OTU: Operational taxonomic unit(s).
    Time (days) Treatment Most abundant OTU Reads Total OTU No. of the most dominant OTUs (cumulative relative dominance ≥ 75%)
    Dominance (%)
    Closest relative
    Sea water MCB012 77,521 279 13
    20.9%
    Balneola alkaliphila
    0 Mk exoskeleton MCB003 7,783 159 23
    17.3%
    Pseudoalteromonas porphyrae
    6 S MCB005 126,317 247 3
    38.7%
    Colwellia asteriadis
    B MCB001 68,571 198 7
    37.5%
    Reinekea aestuarii
    A MCB004 74,820 151 4
    37.2%
    Halomonas aquamarina
    9 S MCB0001 78,847 245 9
    26.7%
    Reinekea aestuarii
    B MCB001 83,662 239 9
    31.6%
    Reinekea aestuarii
    A MCB003 77,454 162 4
    55.8%
    Pseudoalteromonas porphyrae
    12 S MCB0005 74,228 285 15
    16.6%
    Colwellia asteriadis
    B MCB001 87,921 264 8
    28.4%
    Reinekea aestuarii
    A MCB004 76,925 176 6
    24.0%
    Halomonas aquamarina
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 3. Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) based on Bray-Curtis similarity of the relative abundance of the biofilm bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) found on the exoskeleton of Melicertus kerathurus in the sterile (S, blue dots), bacteria-only (B, purple dots) and artificial (A, brown dots) seawater containing treatments. Black dot (d0) represents the initial bacterial OTUs before inoculating at the different treatments; Pink dot represents natural seawater bacterial community.

    In total, 10 OTUs had >10% at least in one time point and treatment. From this group, the OTUs related to Pseudolateromonas porphyrae and Halomonas aquamarina were found in all three treatments, while Reinekea aestuarii was found only in the S and B treatments. The rest of the OTUs, which were found only in one of the treatments were related to Compostimonas spp., Pseudoalteromonas ruthenica (in S), Flavobacterium spp. and Tenacibaculum discolor (in B) and Vibrio crassostreae, Ruegeria sp. Alteromonas macleodii (in A). The rest of the OTUs showed minor changes (<10%) in their relative abundances (Figure S3).

    A comparable proportion of total OTUs per treatment (17.7-20.6%) was shared from d0 to d12 but the number of unique OTUs decreased from d0 to d12 (Figure S4). A similar pattern of comparable shared OTUs (42.6-45.9%) and decreasing unique OTUs was also observed between the different treatments in each sampling point (Figure S4). Regarding only the shared OTUs found in each treatment (Figure S5), 59 of them (76.6%) were also shared in all three treatments, indicating that these OTUs represent Bacteria that can be present on the M. kerathurus exoskeleton regardless of their origin and supplied nutrients (seawater vs. exoskeleton).


    4. Conclusions

    In this paper we describe the growth and succession of the bacterial biofilms developed during the degradation of exoskeleton fragments of the marine shrimp Melicertus kerathurus in unamended sea water batch cultures. We aimed at depicting which bacteria are most likely to be favoured for growth on the exoskeleton as biofilms. Only Proteobacteria (mostly γ- and α-Proteobacteria) and Bacteroidetes were favoured for abundant growth, i.e. changes in their relative abundance for ≥10% in the biofilms (sensu [26]) and these taxa are discussed further in this paper. Moreover, the bacterial cell biovolume, which is a proxy for cell growth, indicated that maximum growth occurred soon after the initiation of the experiment and reached its initial values at the end of the experiment (Figure 2), after the biofilm maturation.

    The dominance of rod shaped bacteria in the biofilms (Figure 1) is in accordance with the morphology of all the dominant bacterial taxa with >10% changes found in this experiment [27,28,29]. Moreover, their ability to growth fast is also depicted by their high copy number of their 16S rRNA gene (Table S1), a parameter which is in direct positive correlation with the maximum growth rate [30]. Of all the found OTUs, the ones that could be of special interest for the degradation of the M. kerathurus exoskeleton, are the ones that occurred in multiple treatments and exhibited considerable growth, i.e. changes of more or less than 10% of their relative abundance compared to day 0 or the previous sampling. Most of these bacteria are known chitinolytic taxa [4,15].

    The two bacterial species which were present in all treatments and increased during the experiments for more than 10% were Pseudolateromonas porphyrae and Halomonas aquamarina. P. porphyrae growth changed more than 10% from the initial sample, only in the artificial sea water treatments, indicating its ability to outcompete other bacteria in the incubation conditions used in this experiment. The genus Pseudoalteromonas is widespread in the marine environment with several of its known species having chitinolytic and alginolytic properties [27]. P. porphyrae was first isolated from the decayed seaweed Porphyrae yezoensis [31] and it is associated with aquatic biofilms [32,33]. The two available genomes of this species [34] contain chitinase genes which in combination with their occurrence in all of our treatments along with its high 16S gene copy number, i.e. indicative of rapid growth, suggest that it is a very potent candidate for chitin degradation of the shrimp's exoskeleton. P. ruthenica is among the major biofilm formers in the marine environment [35]. It has been first described from two marine molluscs, the mussel Crenomytilus grayanus, and the scallop Patinopecten yessoensis, but it has been found also in the bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii [36] and the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei [37]. It is known to be able to degrade chitin [38] and has anti-bacterial properties against pathogenic bacteria [39,40].

    The growth of Halomonas aquamarina was also highest in the artificial sea water treatment, indicative of its marine to moderately halophilic properties (e.g. [41,42,43]) and also its ability to sustain its growth with only the exoskeleton itself as growth substrate. Its halophilic nature is also in accordance with the fact that the biofilm of H. aquamarina has been shown to be facilitated by higher salt concentrations in soil [44]. H. aquamarina is a species related to marine crustacean exoskeleton in several ways. It has been reported to contribute to the formation of bioflocs in the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei growth ponds [45] and it is also considered to have beneficial properties as a probiotic for the same shrimp [46]. Moreover, its widespread occurrence in marine biofilms [47] and its ability to grow by using complex hydrocarbons has also been shown [48,49] suggesting that it can be used for the degradation of chitinous exoskeleton.

    Reinekea aestuarii is known to hydrolyse chitin [50] and it is also related to algal polysaccharides during phytoplankton blooms [51]. As it exhibited important growth only in the natural sea water containing treatments, it is more likely to require nutrients and substrates from the water and/or the exoskeleton itself.

    Colwellia asteriadis grew only in the sterile sea water and this is probably due to its ability to hydrolyse chitin [52] but its biofilm formation capacity is also known for other biotic and abiotic surfaces of the marine environment [53,54,55,56].

    One member of the biofilms developed solely in the sterile sea water treatment was related to the genus Compostimonas. The only described species of the genus is Compostimonas suwonensis which does not assimilate N-acetylglucosamine, the major constituent of chitin [57]. For this reason, it is likely that it does not contribute to the exoskeleton contribution. Chitin degradation by Actinobacteria has been reported only for rare members of the phylum [58].

    A Flavobacterium-related bacterium was among the biofilm constituents in the treatments containing natural marine bacterial assemblages only. Members of the genus Flavobacterium are widely distributed in, mostly, aquatic habitats, both freshwater and marine [59] and are known to participate in biofilms [56,60]. As the taxonomic assignment to a specific species of the genus is not feasible in our study, possibly due to the short length sequence, its ability to be actively involved in the exoskeleton degradation remains dubious.

    Another bacterium which grew only in the sea water bacteria containing treatment was Tenacibaculum discolor. Members of the Tenacibaculum genus is related to fish disease [61,62]. T. discolor has been isolated from a diseased sole (Solea senegalensis) and has also been found in the bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii [36]. Banning et al. [63] have reported its bacteriolytic behavior and the fact that we found it more abundant in the bacterial-containing treatment, along with the fact that in the literature it is not reported to be able to grow on chitin, most likely its growth is associated with the attachment on other bacteria of the biofilm.

    Vibrio crassostreae grew significantly in the artificial sea water containing treatment. It has been isolated from the haemolymph of the oyster Crassostrea gigas [64], is a known member of marine biofilms as it has been associated with several marine surfaces such as the red coral Corallium rubrum [65], the invasive green alga Caulerpa cylindracea [66], molluscs [67] the polychaete Myxicola infundibulum [68] oysters [69], the mussel Mytilus coruscus [70] several fish [71,72] or even microplastics [73]. However, its most interesting properties related to crustaceans exoskeletons have only recently been reported. V. crassostreae seems to be associated with the tail fan necrosis of spiny lobsters where is chitinolytic ability was also shown [74]. This biofilm former, as many Vibrio spp. have chitin binding and utilization genes [75] could be actively involved in the exoskeleton degradation of the M. kerathurus, acquiring its nutrients solely from the shrimp's exoskeleton and benefiting from the exclusion of other bacteria not able to grow in the artificial seawater.

    The last two bacteria with significant growth in the artificial sea water containing treatments were associated with Ruegeria spp. and Alteromonas macleodii. Although the genus Ruegeria is associated with marine surfaces [76,77] there is no evidence that members of this genus are hydrolyzing chitin [28]. Here, it grew at the late stage of the biofilm, possible feeding by other bacteria and their metabolites. Alteromonas macleodii, with a specific ecotype existing in the Mediterranean Sea [78,79] is a ubiquitous copiotroph [80,81,82,83,84] that is favoured by increased salinity [41,85] and is functionally selected as a keystone species with the cyanobacterium Trichodesmium [85,86]. Its copiotrophic nature in combination with its high growth rate, as inferred by its multiple 16S rDNA copy number (sensu [30]) and its ability to process complex algal polysaccharides [48,87,88,89], coral mucus [90], barnacles [91] and other refractory organic matter in the sea [92], could make it a protagonist in the chitin degradation of M. kerathurus exoskeleton as well. For example, a strain of A. macleodii has been found to have a spectacular enzyme activity for the degradation of complex organic substrates [93]. Its surface-associated lifestyle is also supported by its probiotic use in aquaculture [94] and even deep-sea hydrothermal vent shrimps [95] and polychaetes [96]. However, it might be outcompeted by others as it did not perform that well in the other two treatments where other bacteria and or substrates from the surrounding environment existed.

    In conclusion, our study extends the list of bacterial with the potential to degrade crustacean exoskeletons as biofilms in natural sea water. We found that exoskeleton biofilm development takes place in just a few days with some of the bacteria being selected for rapid growth in these biofilms originating either from the marine environment or from the natural microbiota of the exoskeleton itself. An indirect indication of chitin degradation by the biofilm came from the fact that pH during the experiment was reduced from 8.1 at the beginning to 6.7 at the end of the experiment. Activity of chitinase genes is favoured in lower pH values than those prevailing in natural sea water [6,17,97]. Future research is required to assess whether these bacterial species could be appropriate degraders for the management of crustacean cell waste in an ecofriendly way as they can grow in natural sea water.


    Acknowledgements

    Part of this work was financed by the MSc program “Sustainable Management of Aquatic Environment” of the Department of Ichthyology & Aquatic Environment, University of Thessaly.


    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare no conflict of interest in this paper.


    [1] Zobell CE, Rittenberg SC (1938) The occurrence and characteristics of chitinoclastic bacteria in the sea. J Bacteriol 35: 275–287.
    [2] Gooday GW (1990) The ecology of chitin degradation. Adv Microb Ecol 11: 387–430. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-7612-5_10
    [3] Alluwihare LI, Meador T (2008) Chemical composition of marine dissolved organic nitrogen, In: Capone DG, Bronk DA, Mulholland MR, Carpenter EJ, Editors, Nitrogen in the marine environment, Academic Press, 95–140.
    [4] Souza CP, Almeida BC, Colwell RR, et al. (2011) The importance of chitin in the marine environment. Mar Biotechnol 13: 823. doi: 10.1007/s10126-011-9388-1
    [5] Seki H (1965) Rough estimation on chitin decomposition in the ocean. J Oceanogr Soc Jpn 21: 253–260. doi: 10.5928/kaiyou1942.21.253
    [6] Gooday GW (1990) Physiology of microbial degradation of chitin and chitosan. Biodegradation 1: 177–190. doi: 10.1007/BF00058835
    [7] Teng WL, Khor E, Tan TK, et al. (2001) Concurrent production of chitin from shrimp shells and fungi. Carbohyd Res 332: 305–316. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6215(01)00084-2
    [8] FAO (2017) An overview of recently published global aquaculture statistics. FAO aquaculture newsletter No. 56, 2017.
    [9] Zakaria Z, Hall GM, Shama G (1998) Lactic acid fermentation of scampi waste in a rotating horizontal bioreactor for chitin recovery. Process Biochem 33: 1–6. doi: 10.1016/S0032-9592(97)00069-1
    [10] No HK, Meyers SP (1995) Preparation and characterization of chitin and chitosan-a review. J Aquat Food Prod T 4: 27–52. doi: 10.1300/J030v04n02_03
    [11] Kurita K (2001) Controlled functionalization of the polysaccharide chitin. Prog Polym Sci 26: 1921–1971. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6700(01)00007-7
    [12] Healy M, Green A, Healy A (2003) Bioprocessing of marine crustacean shell waste. Acta Biotechnol 23: 151–160. doi: 10.1002/abio.200390023
    [13] Islam MS, Khan S, Tanaka M (2004) Waste loading in shrimp and fish processing effluents: Potential source of hazards to the coastal and nearshore environments. Mar Pollut Bull 49: 103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.018
    [14] Beaney P, Lizardi-Mendoza J, Healy M (2010) Comparison of chitins produced by chemical and bioprocessing methods. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 80: 145–150.
    [15] Brzezinska MS, Jankiewicz U, Burkowska A, et al. (2014) Chitinolytic microorganisms and their possible application in environmental protection. Curr Microbiol 68: 71–81. doi: 10.1007/s00284-013-0440-4
    [16] Brück WM, Slater JW, Carney BF (2010) Chitin and chitosan from marine organisms, In: Kim SK, Editor, Chitin, chitosan, oligosaccharides and their derivatives, Biological activities and applications, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 11–24.
    [17] Jo GH, Park RD, Jung WJ (2011) Enzymatic production of chitin from crustacean shell waste, In: Kim SK, Editor, Chitin, chitosan, oligosaccharides and their derivatives, biological activities and applications, Boca Raton, CRC Press, 37–46.
    [18] Sogin ML, Morrison HG, Huber JA, et al. (2006) Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored "rare biosphere". P Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 12115–12120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0605127103
    [19] FAO, 2018. Available from: http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2587/en.
    [20] Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, et al. (2012) Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res 41: e1. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1297
    [21] Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, et al. (2009) Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microb 75: 7537–7541. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09
    [22] Quince C, Lanzen A, Curtis TP, et al. (2009) Accurate determination of microbial diversity from 454 pyrosequencing data. Nat Methods 6: 639–641. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1361
    [23] Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K, et al. (2007) SILVA: A comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res 35: 7188–7196. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm864
    [24] Kunin V, Engelbrektson A, Ochman H, et al. (2010) Wrinkles in the rare biosphere: Pyrosequencing errors can lead to artificial inflation of diversity estimates. Environ Microbiol 12: 118–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02051.x
    [25] Stackenbrandt E, Goebel BM (1994) Taxonomic note: A place for DNA-DNA reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology. Int J Syst Evol Micr 44: 846–849. doi: 10.1099/00207713-44-4-846
    [26] Newton RJ, Shade A (2016) Lifestyles of rarity: Understanding heterotrophic strategies to inform the ecology of the microbial rare biosphere. Aquat Microb Ecol 78: 51–63. doi: 10.3354/ame01801
    [27] Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (2010a) Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. Part B: The Gammaproteobacteria, New York: Springer, 1106.
    [28] Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (2010b) Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. Part C: The Alpha-, Beta-, Delta-, and Epsilonproteobacteria, New York: Springer, 1388.
    [29] Krieg NR, Staley JT, Brown DR, et al. (2010) Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. The Bacteroidetes, Spirochaetes, Tenericutes (Mollicutes), Acidobacteria, Fibrobacteres, Fusobacteria, Dictyoglomi, Gemmatimonadetes, Lentisphaerae, Verrucomicrobia, Chlamydiae, and Planctomycetes, New York: Springer, 949.
    [30] Roller BRK, Stoddard SF, Schmidt TM (2016) Exploiting rRNA operon copy number to investigate bacterial reproductive strategies. Nat Microbiol 1: 16160. doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.160
    [31] Yan YY, Zhu FF, Sun QQ, Pseudoalteromonas porphyrae sp. nov., a marine bacterium that is the causative agent of bud blight disease of Porphyrae yezoensis, 2002. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
    [32] Dimitrieva GY, Crawford RL, Yüksel GÜ (2006) The nature of plant growth-promoting effects of a pseudoalteromonad associated with the marine algae Laminaria japonica and linked to catalase excretion. J Appl Microbiol 100: 1159–1169. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.02831.x
    [33] Kacar A, Kocyigit A, Ozdemir G, et al. (2009) The development of biofilm bacteria on panels coated by different antifouling paints in the marinas. Fresen Environ Bull 18: 2004–2012.
    [34] Lee RD, Jospin G, Lang JM, et al. (2016) Draft genome sequences of two Pseudoalteromonas porphyrae strains isolated from seagrass sediment. Genome Announc 4: e00092–e00116.
    [35] Offret C, Desriac F, Le Chevalier P, et al. (2016) Spotlight on antimicrobial metabolites from the marine bacteria Pseudoalteromonas: Chemodiversity and ecological significance. Mar Drugs 14: 129. doi: 10.3390/md14070129
    [36] Valdenegro-Vega V, Naeem S, Carson J, et al. (2013) Culturable microbiota of ranched southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii Castelnau). J Appl Microbiol 115: 923–932.
    [37] Li J, Tan B, Mai K (2011) Isolation and identification of a bacterium from marine shrimp digestive tract: A new degrader of starch and protein. J Ocean U China 10: 287–292. doi: 10.1007/s11802-011-1849-7
    [38] Ivanova EP, Sawabe T, Lysenko AM, et al. (2002) Pseudoalteromonas ruthenica sp. nov., isolated from marine invertebrates. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 52: 235–240.
    [39] Vynne NG, Mansson M, Nielsen KF, et al. (2011) Bioactivity, chemical profiling, and 16S rRNA-based phylogeny of Pseudoalteromonas strains collected on a global research cruise. Mar Biotechnol 13: 1062–1073. doi: 10.1007/s10126-011-9369-4
    [40] Ahmad A, Sulieman MFI, Usup G (2016) Anti-biofilm activity of the marine bacterium Pseudoalteromonas ruthenica KLPp3 against Serratia marcescens and Vibrio alginolyticus. Malays J Microbiol 12: 30–34.
    [41] Sass AM, Sass H, Coolen MJL, et al. (2001) Microbial communities in the chemocline of a hypersaline deep-sea basin (Urania Basin, Mediterranean Sea). Appl Environ Microb 67: 5392–5402. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.12.5392-5402.2001
    [42] Ettoumi B, Bouhajja E, Borin S, et al. (2010) Gammaproteobacteria occurrence and microdiversity in Tyrrhenian Sea sediments as revealed by cultivation-dependent and -independent approaches. Syst Appl Microbiol 33: 222–231. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2010.02.005
    [43] De Vitis V, Guidi B, Contente ML, et al. (2015) Marine microorganisms as source of stereoselective esterases and ketoreductases: Kinetic resolution of a prostaglandin intermediate. Mar Biotechnol 17: 144–152. doi: 10.1007/s10126-014-9602-z
    [44] Qurashi AW, Sabri AN (2012) Biofilm formation in moderately halophilic bacteria is influenced by varying salinity levels. J Basic Microbiol 52: 566–572. doi: 10.1002/jobm.201100253
    [45] Kasan NA, Ghazali NA, Ikhwanuddin M, et al. (2017) Isolation of potential bacteria as inoculum for biofloc formation in pacific whiteleg shrimp, litopenaeus vannamei culture ponds. Pak J Biol Sci 20: 306–313. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2017.306.313
    [46] Suantika G, Aditiawati P, Astuti DI, et al. (2013) The use of indigenous probiotic halomonas aquamarina and shewanella algae for white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei boone) hatchery productivity in zero water discharge system. J Aquac Res Dev 4: 194.
    [47] Inbakandan D, Murthy PS, Venkatesan R, et al. (2010) 16S rDNA sequence analysis of culturable marine biofilm forming bacteria from a ship's hull. Biofouling 26: 893–899. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2010.530347
    [48] Sorkhoh NA, Alawadhi H, Almailem DM, et al. (2010) Agarolytic bacteria with hydrocarbon-utilization potential in fouling material from the Arabian Gulf coast. Int Biodeter Biodegr 64: 554–559. doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2010.06.007
    [49] Al-Mailem DM, Eliyas M, Radwan SS (2012) Enhanced haloarchaeal oil removal in hypersaline environments via organic nitrogen fertilization and illumination. Extremophiles 16: 751–758. doi: 10.1007/s00792-012-0471-y
    [50] Choi A, Cho JC (2010) Reinekea aestuarii sp. nov., isolated from tidal flat sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 60: 2813–2817.
    [51] Avci B, Hahnke RL, Chafee M, et al. (2017) Genomic and physiological analyses of "Reinekea forsetii" reveal a versatile opportunistic lifestyle during spring algae blooms. Environ Microbiol 19: 1209–1221. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13646
    [52] Choi EJ, Kwon HC, Koh HY, et al. (2010) Colwellia asteriadis sp. nov., a marine bacterium isolated from the starfish Asterias amurensis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 60: 1952–1957.
    [53] Gillan DC, Speksnijder AG, Zwart G, et al. (1998) Genetic diversity of the biofilm covering Montacuta ferruginosa (Mollusca, bivalvia) as evaluated by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis and cloning of PCR-amplified gene fragments coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microb 64: 3464–3472.
    [54] Schwermer CU, Lavik G, Abed RM, et al. (2008) Impact of nitrate on the structure and function of bacterial biofilm communities in pipelines used for injection of seawater into oil fields. Appl Environ Microb 74: 2841–2851. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02027-07
    [55] Finnegan L, Garciamelgares M, Gmerek T, et al. (2011) A survey of culturable aerobic and anaerobic marine bacteria in de novo biofilm formation on natural substrates in St. Andrews Bay, Scotland. Anton Leeuw 100: 399–404.
    [56] Casillo A, Lanzetta R, Parrilli M, et al. (2018) Exopolysaccharides from marine and marine extremophilic bacteria: Structures, properties, ecological roles and applications. Mar Drugs 16: 69. doi: 10.3390/md16020069
    [57] Kim SJ, Tamura T, Hamada M, et al. (2012) Compostimonas suwonensis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from spent mushroom compost. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 62: 2410–2416.
    [58] Tiwari K, Gupta RK (2013) Diversity and isolation of rare actinomycetes: An overview. Crit Rev Microbiol 39: 256–294. doi: 10.3109/1040841X.2012.709819
    [59] Bernardet JF, Bowman JP (2006) The Genus Flavobacterium, In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E, Editors, The Prokaryotes, New York: Springer, 2006.
    [60] Doghri I, Rodrigues S, Bazire A, et al. (2015) Marine bacteria from the French Atlantic coast displaying high forming-biofilm abilities and different biofilm 3D architectures. BMC Microbiol 15: 231. doi: 10.1186/s12866-015-0568-4
    [61] Martins P, Cleary DFR, Pires ACC, et al. (2013) Molecular analysis of bacterial communities and detection of potential pathogens in a recirculating aquaculture system for Scophthalmus maximus and Solea senegalensis. PLoS One 8: e80847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080847
    [62] Fernández-Álvarez C, Torres-Corral Y, Saltos-Rosero N, et al. (2017) MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry for rapid differentiation of Tenacibaculum species pathogenic for fish. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101: 5377–5390. doi: 10.1007/s00253-017-8324-3
    [63] Banning EC, Casciotti KL, Kujawinski EB (2010) Novel strains isolated from a coastal aquifer suggest a predatory role for flavobacteria. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 73: 254–270.
    [64] Faury N, Saulnier D, Thompson FL, et al. (2004) Vibrio crassostreae sp. nov., isolated from the haemolymph of oysters (Crassostrea gigas). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54: 2137–2140.
    [65] Poli A, Romano I, Mastascusa V, et al. (2018) Vibrio coralliirubri sp. nov., a new species isolated from mucus of red coral (Corallium rubrum) collected at Procida island, Italy. Anton Leeuw 2018: 1–11.
    [66] Rizzo L, Fraschetti S, Alifano P, et al. (2016) Association of Vibrio community with the Atlantic Mediterranean invasive alga Caulerpa cylindracea. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 475: 129–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2015.11.013
    [67] Romalde JL, Dieguez AL, Lasa A, et al. (2013) New Vibrio species associated to molluscan microbiota: A review. Front Microbiol 4: 413.
    [68] Stabili L, Giangrande A, Pizzolante G, et al. (2014) Characterization of vibrios diversity in the mucus of the polychaete Myxicola infundibulum (Annellida, Polichaeta). Microb Ecol 67: 186–194. doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0312-2
    [69] Bruto M, James A, Petton B, et al. (2017) Vibrio crassostreae, a benign oyster colonizer turned into a pathogen after plasmid acquisition. ISME J 11: 1043–1052. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2016.162
    [70] Huang D, Liang X, Peng L, et al. (2017) Effects of Vibrio biofilms of different sources on settlement of plantigrades of the mussel Mytilus coruscus. J Fish China 41: 1149–1147.
    [71] Sugita H, Mizuki H, Itoi S (2012) Diversity of siderophore-producing bacteria isolated from the intestinal tracts of fish along the Japanese coast. Aquac Res 43: 481–488. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.02851.x
    [72] Hatje E, Neuman C, Stevenson H, et al. (2014) Population dynamics of Vibrio and Pseudomonas species isolated from farmed Tasmanian Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.): A seasonal study. Microb Ecol 68: 679–687.
    [73] Foulon V, Le Roux F, Lambert C, et al. (2016) Colonization of polystyrene microparticles by Vibrio crassostreae: Light and electron microscopic investigation. Environ Sci Technol 50: 10988–10996. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02720
    [74] Zha H, Jeffs A, Dong Y, et al. (2018) Potential virulence factors of bacteria associated with tail fan necrosis in the spiny lobster, Jasus edwardsii. J Fish Dis 31: 817–828.
    [75] Fontanez KM, Eppley JM, Samo TJ, et al. (2015) Microbial community structure and function on sinking particles in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Front Microbiol 6: 469.
    [76] Vandecandelaere I, Nercessian O, Segaert E, et al. (2008) Ruegeria scottomollicae sp. nov., isolated from a marine electroactive biofilm. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 58: 2726–2733.
    [77] Magalhães C, Kiene RP, Buchan A, et al. (2012) A novel inhibitory interaction between dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) and the denitrification pathway. Biogeochemistry 107: 393–408. doi: 10.1007/s10533-010-9560-0
    [78] Smedile F, Messina E, La Cono V, et al. (2013) Metagenomic analysis of hadopelagic microbial assemblages thriving at the deepest part of Mediterranean Sea, Matapan-Vavilov Deep. Environ Microbiol 15: 167–182. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02827.x
    [79] Luna G (2015) Diversity of marine microbes in a changing Mediterranean Sea. Rend Lincei 26: 49–58. doi: 10.1007/s12210-014-0333-x
    [80] Pukall R, Päuker O, Buntefuß D, et al. (1999) High sequence diversity of Alteromonas macleodii-related cloned and cellular 16S rDNAs from a Mediterranean seawater mesocosm experiment. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 28: 335–344. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.1999.tb00588.x
    [81] Garcia-Martinez J, Acinas SG, Massana R, et al. (2002) Prevalence and microdiversity of Alteromonas macleodii-like microorganisms in different oceanic regions. Environ Microbiol 4: 42–50. doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00255.x
    [82] Ivars-Martinez E, D'Auria G, Rodriguez-Valera F, et al. (2008) Biogeography of the ubiquitous marine bacterium Alteromonas macleodii determined by multilocus sequence analysis. Mol Ecol 17: 4092–4106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03883.x
    [83] Klochko V, Zelena L, Ivoychuk S, et al. (2012) Peculiarities of Alteromonas macleodii strains reflects their deep/surface habitation rather than geographical distribution. J Gen Appl Microbiol 58: 129–135. doi: 10.2323/jgam.58.129
    [84] López-Pérez M, Rodriguez-Valera F, (2014) The family Alteromonadaceae, In: The Prokaryotes: Gammaproteobacteria, 69–92.
    [85] Hou S, López-Pérez M, Pfreundt U, et al. (2018) Benefit from decline: The primary transcriptome of Alteromonas macleodii str. Te101 during Trichodesmium demise. ISME J 12: 981–996.
    [86] Lee MD, Walworth NG, Mcparland EL, et al. (2017) The Trichodesmium consortium: Conserved heterotrophic co-occurrence and genomic signatures of potential interactions. ISME J 11: 1813–1824. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.49
    [87] Chi WJ, Lim JH, Park DY, et al. (2013) Isolation and characterization of a novel agar degrading bacterium, Alteromonas macleodii subsp. GNUM08120, from red macroalgae. Korean J Microbiol Biotechnol 41: 8–16. doi: 10.4014/kjmb.1208.08001
    [88] Neumann AM, Balmonte JP, Berger M, et al. (2015) Different utilization of alginate and other algal polysaccharides by marine Alteromonas macleodii ecotypes. Environ Microbiol 17: 3857–3868. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12862
    [89] Mitulla M, Dinasquet J, Guillemette R, et al. (2016) Response of bacterial communities from California coastal waters to alginate particles and an alginolytic Alteromonas macleodii strain. Environ Microbiol 18: 4369–4377. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13314
    [90] Allers E, Niesner C, Wild C, et al. (2008) Microbes enriched in seawater after addition of coral mucus. Appl Environ Microb 74: 3274–3278. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01870-07
    [91] O'Connor NJ, Richardson DL (1998) Attachment of barnacle (Balanus amphitrite Darwin) larvae: Responses to bacterial films and extracellular materials. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 226: 115–129. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(97)00242-6
    [92] Goto S, Tada Y, Suzuki K, et al. (2017) Production and reutilization of fluorescent dissolved organic matter by a marine bacterial strain, Alteromonas macleodii. Front Microbiol 8: 507.
    [93] Varbanets LD, Avdeeva LV, Borzova NV, et al. (2011) The Black Sea bacteria-producers of hydrolytic enzymes. Mikrobiol Z 73: 9–15.
    [94] Kesarcodi-Watson A, Kaspar H, Lategan MJ, et al. (2010) Alteromonas macleodii 0444 and Neptunomonas sp. 0536, two novel probiotics for hatchery-reared Greenshell™ mussel larvae, Perna canaliculus. Aquaculture 309: 49–55.
    [95] Raguénès G, Cambon-Bonavita MA, Lohier JF, et al. (2003) A novel, highly viscous polysaccharide excreted by an Alteromonas isolated from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent shrimp. Curr Microbiol 46: 448–452. doi: 10.1007/s00284-002-3922-3
    [96] Cambon-Bonavita MA, Raguenes G, Jean J, et al. (2002) A novel polymer produced by a bacterium isolated from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent polychaete annelid. J Appl Microbiol 93: 310–315. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01689.x
    [97] Khandeparker L, Gaonkar CC, Desai DV (2013) Degradation of barnacle nauplii: Implications to chitin regulation in the marine environment. Biologia 68: 696–706.
  • microbiol-04-03-397-s1.pdf
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Ragnhildur Gudmundsdóttir, Snædís H Björnsdóttir, Viggó Þ Marteinsson, Snæbjörn Pálsson, Comparison of the gut microbiota in the groundwater amphipod Crangonyx islandicus Svavarsson & Kristjánsson, 2006 (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae) to biofilms in its spring-source habitat, 2020, 40, 0278-0372, 657, 10.1093/jcbiol/ruaa065
    2. Sangeeta Yadav, Sonam Tripathi, Diane Purchase, Ram Chandra, Development of a biofilm-forming bacterial consortium and quorum sensing molecules for the degradation of lignin-containing organic pollutants, 2023, 00139351, 115618, 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115618
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(6163) PDF downloads(793) Cited by(2)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog