1887

Access Microbiology open research platform logo

Volume 6, Issue 4

How suitable is freshwater sponge (Linnaeus, 1759) for time-integrated biomonitoring of microbial water quality? Open Access

Abstract

Faecal pollution of water by bacteria has a negative effect on water quality and can pose a potential health hazard. Conventional surveillance of microbial water quality relies on the analysis of low-frequency spot samples and is thus likely to miss episodic or periodic pollution. This study aimed to investigate the potential of filter-feeding sponges for time-integrated biomonitoring of microbial water quality. Laboratory trials tested the effects of different ratios of bacterial abundance and the sequence of exposure on bacterial retention by the freshwater sponge (Linnaeus, 1759) to establish its potential to indicate bacterial exposure. Gemmule grown sponges were simultaneously exposed to and but at different ratios (Trial 1) or individually exposed to each bacterial species but in different sequential order (Trial 2). The and retained in each sponge was quantified by culture on selective agars. Data analysis was conducted using the Kruskal–Wallis test and/or the Mann–Whitney U test to compare between the numbers of bacteria retained in each treatment. Additionally, the Wilcoxon matched-paired signed-rank test was used for comparison of the different bacterial abundances retained within each individual sponge. Sponges from all trials retained and in small numbers relative to the exposure (<0.05 % Trial 1 and <0.07 % Trial 2) but exhibited higher retention of . Higher abundance of either bacterial species resulted in significantly lower (<0.005) retention of the same species within sponges (Trial 1). An initial exposure to resulted in significantly higher (=0.040) retention of both bacterial species than when sponges were exposed to first (Trial 2).Bacterial retention by sponges was neither quantitatively representative of bacterial abundance in the ambient water nor the sequence of exposure. This implies either selective filtration or an attempt by sponges to prevent infection. However, freshwater sponges may still be useful in biomonitoring as qualitative time-integrated samplers of faecal indicator bacteria as they detect different bacteria present in the water even if their quantities cannot be estimated.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): Enterococcus faecalis , Ephydatia fluviatilis , Escherichia coli , faecal pollution , freshwater sponges and water-quality monitoring
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland
    • Principle Award Recipient: AllisonCartwright
© 2024 Crown Copyright
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000691.v4
2024-04-19
2024-05-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/6/4/acmi000691.v4.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000691.v4&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Gao G, Falconer RA, Lin B. Modelling importance of sediment effects on fate and transport of enterococci in the Severn Estuary, UK. Mar Pollut Bull 2013; 67:45–54 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Longo C, Corriero G, Licciano M, Stabili L. Bacterial accumulation by the Demospongiae Hymeniacidon perlevis: a tool for the bioremediation of polluted seawater. Mar Pollut Bull 2010; 60:1182–1187 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Walk ST, Alm EW, Calhoun LM, Mladonicky JM, Whittam TS. Genetic diversity and population structure of Escherichia coli isolated from freshwater beaches. Environ Microbiol 2007; 9:2274–2288 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cabral JPS. Water microbiology. Bacterial pathogens and water. IJERPH 2010; 7:3657–3703 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Metcalf R, White HL, Ormsby MJ, Oliver DM, Quilliam RS. From wastewater discharge to the beach: survival of human pathogens bound to microplastics during transfer through the freshwater-marine continuum. Environ Pollut 2023; 319:120955 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DEFRA Event Duration Monitoring - Storm Overflows - Annual Returns; 2023 https://environment.data.gov.uk/dataset/21e15f12-0df8-4bfc-b763-45226c16a8ac accessed 16 May 2023
  7. Environmental Agency Water company fined £560,170 after sewage discharge to river; 2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/water-company-fined-560170-after-sewage-discharge-in-river accessed 16 May 2023
  8. Ferguson AS, Layton AC, Mailloux BJ, Culligan PJ, Williams DE et al. Comparison of fecal indicators with pathogenic bacteria and rotavirus in groundwater. Sci Total Environ 2012; 431:314–322 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Wiedenmann A, Krüger P, Dietz K, López-Pila JM, Szewzyk R et al. A randomized controlled trial assessing infectious disease risks from bathing in fresh recreational waters in relation to the concentration of Escherichia coli, intestinal enterococci, Clostridium perfringens, and somatic coliphages. Environ Health Perspect 2006; 114:228–236 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Fu W, Sun L, Zhang X, Zhang W. Potential of the marine sponge Hymeniacidon perleve as a bioremediator of pathogenic bacteria in integrated aquaculture ecosystems. Biotechnol Bioeng 2006; 93:1112–1122 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Harwood VJ, Staley C, Badgley BD, Borges K, Korajkic A. Microbial source tracking markers for detection of fecal contamination in environmental waters: relationships between pathogens and human health outcomes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2014; 38:1–40 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Kay D, Ashbolt N, Wyer MD, Fleisher JM, Fewtrell L et al. Reply to comments on “Derivation of numerical values for the World Health Organization guidelines for recreational waters.”. Water Res 2006; 40:1921–1925 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Briciu-Burghina C, Sullivan T, Chapman J, Regan F. Continuous high-frequency monitoring of estuarine water quality as a decision support tool: a Dublin Port case study. Environ Monit Assess 2014; 186:5561–5580 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kirchner JW, Feng X, Neal C, Robson AJ. The fine structure of water‐quality dynamics: the (high‐frequency) wave of the future. Hydrol Process 2004; 18:1353–1359 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Perea-Blázquez A, Davy SK, Magana-Rodríguez B, Bell JJ. Temporal variation in food utilisation by three species of temperate demosponge. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2013; 485:91–103 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Topçu NE, Pérez T, Grégori G, Harmelin-Vivien M. In situ investigation of Spongia officinalis (Demospongiae) particle feeding: coupling flow cytometry and stable isotope analysis. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2010; 389:61–69 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Wehrl M, Steinert M, Hentschel U. Bacterial uptake by the marine sponge Aplysina aerophoba. Microb Ecol 2007; 53:355–365 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cocchiglia L, Kelly-Quinn M, Lucey J. Classification of freshwater sponge collection at EPA Kilkenny, Dublin; 2013
  19. Willenz P, Vray B, Maillard M-P, Van de Vyver G. A quantitative study of the retention of radioactively labeled E. coli by the freshwater sponge Ephydatia fluviatilis. Physiol Zool 1986; 59:495–504 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cartwright A, Arnscheidt J, Conwell M, Dooley JSG, McGonigle C et al. Effects of freshwater sponge Ephydatia fluviatilis on conjugative transfer of antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus faecalis strains in aquatic environments. Lett Appl Microbiol 2020; 71:39–45 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Rasmont R. Some new aspects of the physiology of fresh-water sponges. In Symposia - Zoological Society of London vol 25 1970 pp 415–422
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Conwell M, Daniels V, Naughton PJ, Dooley JSG. Interspecies transfer of vancomycin, erythromycin and tetracycline resistance among Enterococcus species recovered from agrarian sources. BMC Microbiol 2017; 17:19 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. de Goeij J, van den Berg H, van Oostveen M, Epping E, van Duyl F. Major bulk dissolved organic carbon (DOC) removal by encrusting coral reef cavity sponges. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2008; 357:139–151 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Stabili L, Licciano M, Longo C, Corriero G, Mercurio M. Evaluation of microbiological accumulation capability of the commercial sponge Spongia officinalis var. adriatica (Schmidt) (Porifera, Demospongiae). Water Res 2008; 42:2499–2506 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Pile AJ, Patterson MR, Savarese M, Chernykh VI, Fialkov VA. Trophic effects of sponge feeding within Lake Baikal’s littoral zone. 2. Sponge abundance, diet, feeding efficiency, and carbon flux. Limnol Oceanogr 1997; 42:178–184 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Flint KP. The long-term survival of Escherichia coli in river water. J Appl Bacteriol 1987; 63:261–270 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lleò M del M, Bonato B, Benedetti D, Canepari P. Survival of enterococcal species in aquatic environments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2005; 54:189–196 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Daniels V. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria in Irish waters: Molecular epidemiology and hydrological control Ph.D. Thesis University of Ulster; United Kingdom: 2011
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Campos CJA, Avant J, Lowther J, Till D, Lees D. Levels of norovirus and E. coli in untreated, biologically treated and UV-disinfected sewage effluent discharged to a shellfish water. JWARP 2013; 05:978–982 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Francis JC, Poirrier MA. Particle uptake in two fresh-water sponge species, Ephydatia fluviatilis and Spongilla alba (Porifera: Spongillidae). T Am Microsc Soc 1986; 105:11 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Cartwright A. Freshwater Sponges and their interaction with bacteria through filtration, retention and antimicrobial properties Ph.D. Thesis, Ulster University; 2018
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Milanese M, Chelossi E, Manconi R, Sarà A, Sidri M et al. The marine sponge Chondrilla nucula Schmidt, 1862 as an elective candidate for bioremediation in integrated aquaculture. Biomol Eng 2003; 20:363–368 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Maldonado M, Zhang X, Cao X, Xue L, Cao H et al. Selective feeding by sponges on pathogenic microbes: a reassessment of potential for abatement of microbial pollution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2010; 403:75–89 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. McMurray SE, Johnson ZI, Hunt DE, Pawlik JR, Finelli CM. Selective feeding by the giant barrel sponge enhances foraging efficiency. Limnol Oceanogr 2016; 61:1271–1286 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Pile AJ, Patterson MR, Witman JD. In situ grazing on Plankton <10 m by the Boreal sponge Mycale Lingua. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1996; 141:95–102
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Böhm M, Hentschel U, Friedrich A, Fieseler L, Steffen R et al. Molecular response of the sponge Suberites domuncula to bacterial infection. Mar Biol 2001; 139:1037–1045 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Fu WT, Zhang JL, Zheng CB, Liu J, An ZF et al. Molecular cloning of partial 14-3-3 genes in the marine sponge Hymeniacidon perleve and its role in differentiating infectious and non-infectious bacteria. Chin Sci Bull 2013; 58:766–776 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Reiswig HM. Bacteria as food for temperate-water marine sponges. Can J Zool 1975; 53:582–589 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Arias CA, Murray BE. The rise of the Enterococcus: beyond vancomycin resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol 2012; 10:266–278 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Zheng JX, Wu Y, Lin ZW, Pu ZY, Yao WM et al. Characteristics of and virulence factors associated with biofilm formation in clinical Enterococcus faecalis isolates in China. Front Microbiol 2017; 8:2338 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000691.v4
Loading
How suitable is freshwater sponge Ephydatia fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1759) for time-integrated biomonitoring of microbial water quality?
Access Microbiology 6, 000691.v4 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000691.v4
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000691.v4
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000691.v4
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error