title: Planktonic versus biofilm catabolic communities: importance of the biofilm for species selection and pesticide degradation.
abstract: Chloropropham-degrading cultures were obtained from sludge and soil samples by using two different enrichment techniques: (i) planktonic enrichments in shaken liquid medium and (ii) biofilm enrichments on two types of solid matrixes (plastic chips and gravel). Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis fingerprinting showed that planktonic and biofilm cultures had a different community composition depending on the presence and type of added solid matrix during enrichment. This was reflected in the unique chloropropham-degrading species that could be isolated from the different cultures. Planktonic and biofilm cultures also differed in chloropropham-degrading activity. With biofilm cultures, slower chloropropham removal was observed, but with less build-up of the toxic intermediate 3-chloroaniline. Disruption of the biofilm architecture resulted in degradation characteristics shifting toward those of the free suspensions, indicating the importance of a well-established biofilm structure for good performance. These results show that biofilm-mediated enrichment techniques can be used to select for pollutant-degrading microorganisms that like to proliferate in a biofilm and that cannot be isolated using conventional shaken-liquid procedures. Furthermore, the influence of the biofilm architecture on the pesticide degradation characteristics suggests that for bioaugmentation the use of biofilm catabolic communities might be a proficient alternative to using planktonic freely suspended cultures.
authors: Laboratory of Microbial Ecology and Technology, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
authors: Pieter
authors: P
authors: Verhagen
authors: Leen
authors: L
authors: De Gelder
authors: Sven
authors: S
authors: Hoefman
authors: Paul
authors: P
authors: De Vos
authors: Nico
authors: N
authors: Boon
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982 Feb;43(2):454-7
references: 16345951
references: Syst Appl Microbiol. 2001 Nov;24(3):417-22
references: 11822679
references: Trends Microbiol. 2006 Sep;14(9):389-97
references: 16857359
references: Environ Microbiol. 2008 Jun;10(6):1571-81
references: 18331337
references: Microbiol Rev. 1990 Mar;54(1):75-87
references: 2181260
references: J Bacteriol. 2004 Jul;186(14):4427-40
references: 15231774
references: Syst Appl Microbiol. 2008 Jun;31(2):126-40
references: 18406093
references: Microbiology (Reading). 2003 Nov;149(Pt 11):3279-3287
references: 14600240
references: J Microbiol Methods. 2006 Sep;66(3):410-33
references: 16522336
references: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007 Dec;62(3):374-85
references: 17991021
references: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2000 Dec;64(4):847-67
references: 11104821
references: Crit Rev Microbiol. 2009;35(3):157-68
references: 19624252
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993 Mar;59(3):695-700
references: 7683183
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Jul;66(7):2906-13
references: 10877785
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 May;66(5):1834-43
references: 10788347
references: Genome Res. 1995 Nov;5(4):408-18
references: 8750201
references: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2000 Dec;24(5):661-71
references: 11077157
references: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2008 Jan;278(1):15-21
references: 18034834
references: J Gen Microbiol. 1966 May;43(2):159-271
references: 5963505
references: Annu Rev Microbiol. 1995;49:711-45
references: 8561477
references: Crit Rev Biotechnol. 1992;12(5-6):357-89
references: 1423649
references: Nature. 2009 Apr 2;458(7238):623-6
references: 19270679
references: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2002 Nov 1;42(2):315-25
references: 19709291
references: Pest Manag Sci. 2007 Feb;63(2):111-28
references: 17199234
references: Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Nov 1;36(21):4698-704
references: 12433184
references: Appl Microbiol. 1965 May;13:443-6
references: 14325285