Comparison of PCR-DGGE and Nested-PCR-DGGE Approach for Ammonia Oxidizers Monitoring in Membrane Bioreactors’ Activated Sludge

Open access


Nitritation, the first stage of ammonia removal process is known to be limiting for total process performance. Ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) which perform this process are obligatory activated sludge habitants, a mixture consisting of Bacteria, Protozoa and Metazoa used for biological wastewater treatment. Due to this fact they are an interesting bacterial group, from both the technological and ecological point of view. AOB changeability and biodiversity analyses both in wastewater treatment plants and lab-scale reactors are performed on the basis of 16S rRNA gene sequences using PCR-DGGE (Polymerase Chain Reaction – Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis) as a molecular biology tool. AOB researches are usually led with nested PCR. Because the application of nested PCR is laborious and time consuming, we have attempted to check the possibility of using only first PCR round to obtain DGGE fingerprinting of microbial communities. In this work we are comparing the nested and non-nested PCR-DGGE monitoring of an AOB community and presenting advantages and disadvantages of both methods used. The experiment revealed that PCR technique is a very sensitive tool for the amplification of even a minute amount of DNA sample. But in the case of nested-PCR, the sensitivity is higher and the template amount could be even smaller. The nested PCR-DGGE seems to be a better tool for AOB community monitoring and complexity research in activated sludge, despite shorter fragments of DNA amplification which seems to be a disadvantage in the case of bacteria identification. It is recommended that the sort of analysis approach should be chosen according to the aim of the study: nested-PCR-DGGE for community complexity analysis, while PCR-DGGE for identification of the dominant bacteria.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Hoefel D. Monis P.T. Grooby W.L. Andrews S. & Saint C.P. (2005). Culture-Independent Techniques for Rapid Detection of Bacteria Associated with Loss of Chloramine Residual in a Drinking Water System Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71 11 6479–6488.

  • [2] Jacquot E. van Tuinen D. Gianinazzi S. & Gianinazzi-Pearson V. (2000). Monitoring species of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in planta and in soil by nested PCR: application to the study of the impact of sewage sludge Plant and Soil 226 179–188.

  • [3] Jurczyk Ł. Koc-Jurczyk J. & Różalska P. (2011). Dynamika ilościowa AOB w procesie biologicznego oczyszczania odcieków składowiskowych w warunkach beztlenowych Inżynieria i Ochrona Środowiska 14 4 309–322.

  • [4] Kowalchuk G.A. Stephen J.R. De Boer W. Prosser J.I. Embley T.M. & Woldendorp J.W. (1997). Analysis of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria of the β subdivision of the class Proteobacteria in coastal sand dunes by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequencing of PCR-amplifi ed 16S ribosomal DNA fragments Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63 4 1489–1497.

  • [5] Liu X.-Ch. Shang Y. Yang M. Wang Z.-Y. & Lv W.-Z. (2007). Analysis of bacterial community structures in two sewage treatment plants with different sludge properties and treatment performance by nested PCR-DGGE method Journal of Environmental Science 19 1 60–66.

  • [6] Mao Y. Zhang X. Yan X. Liu B. & Zhao L. (2008). Development of group-specifi c PCR-DGGE fi ngerprinting for monitoring structural changes of Thauera spp. in an industrial wastewater treatment plant responding to operational perturbations Journal of Microbiological Methods 75 231–236.

  • [7] Muyzer G. De Waal E.C. & Uitierlnden A.G. (1993). Profi ling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplifi ed genes coding for 16S rRNA Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59 3 695–700.

  • [8] Otawa K. Asano R. Ohba Y. Sasaki T. Kawamura E. Koyama F. Nakamura S. & Nakai Y. (2006). Molecular analysis of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria community in intermittent aeration sequencing batch reactors used for animal wastewater treatment Environmental Microbiology 8 1985–1996.

  • [9] Schmidt C. S. Hultman K. A. Robinson D. Killham K. & Prosser J. I. (2007). PCR profl ing of ammonia- -oxidizer communities in acidic soils subjected to nitrogen and sulphur deposition FEMS Microbiology Ecology 61 305–316.

  • [10] Silva C.C. Ederson C.J. Torres A.P.R. Sousa M.P. & V.M.J. Santiago. (2010). Investigation of Bacterial Diversity in Membrane Bioreactor and Conventional Activated Sludge Processes from Petroleum Refi neries Using Phylogenetic and Statistical Approaches Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 20 3 447–459.

  • [11] Strom S.C. & Rechitsky S. (1998). Use of Nested PCR to Identify Charred Human Remains and Minute Amounts of Blood Journal of Forensic Sciences 43 3 696–700.

  • [12] Temmerman R. Masco L. Vanhoutte T. Huys G. & Swings J. (2003). Development and Validation of a Nested-PCR-Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis Method for Taxonomic Characterization of Bifi dobacterial Communities Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69 11 6380–6385.

  • [13] van Tuinen D. Jacquot E. Zhao B. Gollotte A. & Gianinazzi-Pearson V. (1998). Characterization of root colonization profi les by microcosm community of arbuscular micorrhyzal fungi using 25rDNA- -targeted nested PCR Molecular Ecology 7 879–887.

  • [14] Xin-Chun L. Yu Z. Min Y. Zhen-Yu W. & Wen-Zhou L. (2007). Analysis of bacterial community structures in two sewage treatment plants with different sludge properties and treatment performance by nested PCR-DGGE method Journal of Environmental Science 19 60–66.

  • [15] Ziembińska A. Ciesielski S. & Wiszniowski J. (2010). DGGE-based monitoring of bacterial biodiversity in activated sludge dealing with wastewater contaminated by organic petroleum compounds Archives of Environmental Protection 364 119–125.

Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.708
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.835

CiteScore 2016: 0.77

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.309
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.775

Gesamte Zeit Letztes Jahr Letzte 30 Tage
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 234 66 1
PDF Downloads 127 46 4