New Bug in Old Bot­tles

by Christoph

Fig­ure 1. Plas­tic Beach near Hirtshals, Den­mark. CC BY 2.0 Kai Sender

"For bev­er­age pack­ag­ing the bar­rier prop­er­ties [= very low per­me­abil­ity] of the PET to cer­tain gases, the ex­cel­lent mass to strength ra­tio and the re­cy­cla­bil­ity of the fi­nal prod­uct are very im­por­tant fea­tures in­flu­enc­ing the choice of PET over other plas­tics or more tra­di­tional pack­ag­ing ma­te­ri­als." (quoted from the essential­che­mi­cal­industry.org web­site). Given such at­trac­tive fea­tures, it's no won­der that about 50 mil­lion tons of poly­eth­yl­ene tereph­tha­late (PET) were pro­duced world­wide in 2013 alone (re­li­able num­bers are hard to come by, it may ac­tually be less to­day than the men­tioned 50 mio tons per year). Great, but there's a prob­lem, in fact sev­eral prob­lems:

  • Prob­lem #1 be­ing that al­though PET re­cy­cling is pos­si­ble and per­formed by re­cy­cling fa­cil­i­ties rou­tinely, a hefty por­tion of PET pack­ag­ing ma­te­ri­als, in par­tic­u­lar bot­tles, never en­ter a re­cy­cling process but are sim­ply "dis­posed of" (Fig­ure 1).
  • Prob­lem #2 stems from the men­tioned "ex­cel­lent mass to strength ra­tio": PET bot­tles tend to float and are hard but not im­pos­si­ble to break me­chan­i­cally, and they are also rea­son­ably re­sis­tant to UV from sun­light. Hence we find PET chips & crumbs world­wide on river shores, on coasts and beaches, where they are vis­i­ble pres­ence (Fig­ure 1). But they are also present where we don't usu­ally see them, in the five large ocean gyres.
  • Prob­lem #3 be­came known from ob­ser­va­tions that PET crumbs in the sub-mil­lime­ter size range can be in­gested by small ma­rine crit­ters, thus PET par­ti­cles en­ter the food chain. No one re­ally knows what the con­se­quences for the ma­rine ecosys­tems are. And also not what the con­se­quences for hu­man fish con­sumers are.
  • Prob­lem #4 is closely re­lated to #3: you can keep PET bot­tles safe in the com­post heap in your gar­den, for decades if you wish, be­cause PET be­longs to the group of those plas­tic po­ly­mers that are al­most com­pletely re­cal­ci­trant to biodegra­da­tion. But they may be not so any longer!

An in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary team of mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists, bio­chemists, bioin­for­mati­cians, poly­mer chemists, and tex­tile sci­en­tists from Keio Uni­ver­sity, Ky­oto Un­ver­sity, and Ky­oto In­sti­tute of Tech­nol­ogy, Japan, started a search for mi­cro­bial PET de­graders in 250 sam­ples taken from soil, waste wa­ter, and ac­ti­vated sludge at the yard of a re­cy­cling fac­tory in Sakai, Japan, that had been pro­cess­ing PET bot­tles for roughly five years.

Fig­ure 2. SEM im­age of cells grown on PET film for 60 h. Bar, 1 µm. Ar­row heads in­di­cate con­tact points of cell ap­pendages and PET film sur­face. Source

They cul­ti­vated their sam­ples at 30°C with shak­ing in test tubes con­tain­ing a de­fined medium sup­ple­mented with a film strip of low-crys­tallinity PET as the main car­bon sour­ce. Af­ter about 3 weeks, they found that in one of the cul­tu­res the PET film showed "mor­phological changes", clear signs of de­gra­da­tion. The mi­cro­bial con­sor­tium in this cul­ture ‒ bac­te­ria, yeast-like cells and pro­tists ‒ could be cul­tured con­tin­u­ously and they were able to iso­late the "cul­prit" for PET degra­da­tion by lim­ited se­r­ial di­lu­tion. (For the ex­perts: ) Dur­ing the di­lu­tion ex­per­i­ments, they mon­i­tored the com­po­si­tion of the mi­crobes by PCR for the SSU rRNAs and com­pared that to the pres­ence / ab­sen­ce of PET-de­grad­ing ac­tiv­ity in the in­di­vid­ual sam­ples. The SSU rRNA analy­sis re­vealed that the "cul­prit" is a Be­ta­pro­teobacterium from the larger Co­ma­mo­nas fam­ily, which they called Ideonella sakaien­sis 201-F6, and which is ‒ they were lucky! ‒ not de­pen­dent on sup­port of other mem­bers of the con­­sortium for growth. Growth tests came up with the re­sult that Ideonella vir­tu­ally min­er­al­izes the PET film since af­ter ~3 weeks roughly 75% of the PET was con­verted to CO2. Un­der the mi­cro­sco­pe, they found that the bac­te­ria are not just hang­ing around in the liq­uid medium but ac­tively at­tach as teams to the PET film through "ap­pendages" (Fig­ure 2). Al­though noth­ing is yet known about the mol­e­c­u­lar makeup and com­po­si­tion of these "ap­pendages", they re­sem­ble at first sight those found to con­nect Geobac­ter or She­wanella cells and are used for con­duct­ing elec­tric­ity.

Fig­ure 3. Pre­dicted PET degra­da­tion path­way. Extra­cellular PETase hy­drolyzes PET to pro­duce MHET (ma­jor prod­uct) and TPA. MHETase, a pre­dicted lipopro­tein, hy­drolyzes MHET to TPA and EG. TPA is in­cor­po­rated through the TPA trans­porter (TPATP) and ca­tab­o­lized by TPA 1,2‑dioxygenase (TPADO), fol­lowed by 1,2‑dihy­droxy‑3,5‑cyclohex­adiene‑1,4‑dicarb­oxylate dehy­dro­gen­­ase (DCDDH). The re­sul­tant PCA is ring-cleaved by PCA 3,4‑dioxygenase (Pca34). Source

Yoshida et al. com­pared the growth of Ideonella on mal­tose and PET as car­bon source and found by the RNAseq tech­nique two genes that were highly ex­pressed when cells were grown on PET. By com­bin­ing their RNAseq da­ta with a genome analy­sis (draft genome level) they were able to iden­tify the PETase, an es­terase that breaks down the PET poly­mer, and the MHETase, a hy­dro­lase that acts at the sec­ond step, both as se­creted pro­teins, and sub­se­quent­ly, the en­zymes for the com­plete me­ta­bo­lic path­way of PET degra­da­tion (Fig­ure 3). This path­way re­­con­struc­tion con­firmed the ex­per­i­men­tal re­sult that Ideo­nel­la can break down PET com­pletely, re­leas­ing CO2 and H2O as 'waste'. This is an im­por­tant find­ing, be­cause bac­te­ri­al degra­da­tion of toxic or prob­lem­atic com­pounds is fre­quently in­com­plete and of­ten yields in­ter­me­di­ates that are not less toxic than the start­ing sub­stances.

It is not with­out prece­dent that a Be­tapro­teobac­terium shows re­mark­able meta­bolic prop­er­ties in deal­ing with com­plex and/or sub­sti­tuted hy­dro­car­bons. For ex­am­ple, Ral­sto­nia sp. TRW‑1 can grow on vinyl chlo­ride (VC) as sole car­bon source, like its close rel­a­tive Ni­tro­somonas eu­ropaea. More dis­tant cousins from the Gamma­pro­teo­bac­teria branch can break down com­plex poly­cyclic aro­matic hy­dro­car­bons (PAH): mem­bers of the ma­rine Oceanospir­il­lales fam­ily were found to be busy clean­ing up the Puget Sound, WA, and slowly elim­i­nat­ing the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mex­ico from 2010 (see here in STC, in pa­ragraph 'De­tour #3'). In the fam­ily Ac­ti­no­bac­te­ria, a No­car­dia sp. was found to de­grade PET, al­beit weakly, and Amy­co­latop­sis mediter­ranei (Pseu­do­no­car­dia­les) en­codes a ho­molog of the I. sa­kai­en­sis PETase ‒ since PETase ho­mologs are ex­tra­or­di­na­ry rare in se­quenced bac­te­r­ial ge­no­mes this smells like some hor­i­zon­tal gene trans­fer (HGT) event at one point in the past.

It may not be too far fetched to as­sume that species ca­pa­ble of me­tab­o­liz­ing one or more plas­tics and organochem­i­cal com­pounds ‒ many of which are con­sid­ered haz­ardous waste, with good rea­son ‒ can be found in vir­tu­ally all het­erotrophic bac­te­r­ial fam­i­lies. And it is en­cour­ag­ing to learn that the Japan­ese sci­en­tists have now found a bac­terium that can po­ten­tially help to get rid of PET. But there is a caveat: a re­cent sur­vey of mi­cro­bial di­ver­sity in agri­cul­tural soils found 2.5 ‒ 5 x 104 dif­ferent bac­te­r­ial species per gram, yet Yoshida et al. iso­lated just one sin­gle PET-de­grad­ing spe­cies, Ideonella sakaien­sis, from 250 one-gram sam­ples. The prover­bial nee­dle in a haystack.

Fig­ure 4. Ex­am­ple of PUR‑A plates ini­tially used to screen for polyurethane-de­grad­ing ac­tiv­ity af­ter 2 weeks of fun­gal growth. A Neg­a­tive con­trol. B Pleospo­rales sp. strain E2705B. Source

But not only bac­te­ria can break down plas­tics! Or­ga­nized as a stu­dents' ex­cur­sion into the meta­bolic di­ver­sity of the small things, mem­bers of Scott Strobel's lab from Yale Uni­ver­sity, New Haven, to­gether with col­leagues from the Uni­ver­si­dad Na­cional de Cuzco, Peru, sam­pled en­do­phytic fungi in the Ama­zon rain­for­est. (A brief re­minder: En­do­phytic fungi thrive sym­bi­ot­i­cally within plant tis­sue, and of­ten serve their host by de­fend­ing against her­bi­vores. Some even en­able their host plants to cope with eleva­ted tem­per­a­tures; we por­trayed them ear­lier here in STC). Among their sam­ples, Stro­bel and col­la­bo­rators found sev­eral iso­lates that de­com­po­se poly­ester polyurethane (PUR) (Fig­ure 4). Fur­ther growth tests of two strains of Pestalo­tiop­sis mi­crospora (fun­gal class: Sor­dar­i­omycetes) in the lab re­vealed that these fun­gi can grow on PUR as sole car­bon source ‒ a re­mark­able feat given such a nasty sub­strate ‒ and that they do so ei­ther aer­o­bi­cally or anaer­o­bi­cally ‒ which is even more re­mark­able ‒ due to the strongly up-reg­u­lated ex­pres­sion of a ded­i­cated ser­ine hy­dro­lase. To come full cir­cle, some years ago two Fusar­ium species (also Sor­dar­i­omycetes) were found to de­grade fi­brous PET in the lab but it's not clear how they would deal with PET in the wild. All these ef­forts can, on the long term, help to trans­form the buzz­word "biore­me­di­a­tion" into vi­able tech­no­log­i­cal al­ter­na­tives to...   sim­ply dump­ing plas­tics into the oceans.

Ge­ol­o­gists in­cu­bate the idea these days that the hu­man im­print on na­ture dur­ing the last hun­dred years would prob­a­bly jus­tify to con­sider the Holocene over and to de­clare the An­thro­pocene as the new, the next ge­o­log­i­cal epoch. Much like the K‑T bound­ary ‒ the thin, irid­ium-laden layer that sep­a­rates the Cre­ta­ceous from the Ter­tiary ‒ the on­set of the new epoch would be read­ily de­tec­table in the fu­ture by a dis­tinct sed­i­ment world­wide: a layer con­tain­ing a de­fined as­sort­ment of long-lived ra­dioiso­topes (the fall­out from the nu­clear tests in the mid-20th cen­tury) mixed with mi­cro­scopic plas­tic par­ti­cles (a col­or­ful her­itage, to put it mildly, of hu­man in­ter­ven­tion into Earth's car­bon cy­cle). Given the ca­pa­bil­ity of the small things to munch on al­most every­thing, the geo­lo­gists would do well to be aware of the like­li­hood of los­ing their 'plas­tic tracer' due to non-an­thro­po­ge­nic in­ter­ven­tions, at least on the ge­o­log­i­cal time scale.

 

Other Posts