A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.

In This Article

  • Summary
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Protocol
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Disclosures
  • Acknowledgements
  • Materials
  • References
  • Reprints and Permissions

Summary

The protocol detects key methane-cycling genes in South Texas coastal wetlands and visualizes their spatial distribution to enhance understanding of methane regulation and its environmental impacts in these dynamic ecosystems.

Abstract

Coastal wetlands are the largest biotic source of methane, where methanogens convert organic matter into methane and methanotrophs oxidize methane, thus playing a critical role in regulating the methane cycle. The wetlands in South Texas, which are subject to frequent weather events, fluctuating salinity levels, and anthropogenic activities due to climate change, influence methane cycling. Despite the ecological importance of these processes, methane cycling in South Texas coastal wetlands remains insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we developed and optimized a method for detecting genes related to methanogens and methanotrophs, including mcrA as a biomarker for methanogens and pmoA1, pmoA2, and mmoX as biomarkers for methanotrophs. Additionally, this study aimed to visualize the spatial and temporal distribution patterns of methanogen and methanotroph abundance utilizing the geographic information system (GIS) software ArcGIS Pro. The integration of these molecular techniques with advanced geospatial visualization provided critical insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of methanogen and methanotroph communities across South Texas wetlands. Thus, the methodology established in this study offers a robust framework for mapping microbial dynamics in wetlands, enhancing our understanding of methane cycling under varying environmental conditions, and supporting broader ecological and environmental change studies.

Introduction

Coastal wetlands are vital ecosystems that contribute to climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and water management through processes such as carbon sequestration, evapotranspiration, and methane (CH4) emissions1. These ecosystems, including both freshwater and saltwater wetlands2, are highly productive and act as critical zones for uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) and capture organic matter from terrestrial and marine environments3,4. The dynamic interactions within these wetlands stimulate microbial CH4 production and consumption5, positioning them as one of the largest natural sources of CH46. As the second most important greenhouse gas, CH4 has a global warming potential approximately 27-30x greater than that of CO24,7,8,9, making the study of CH4 emissions from coastal wetlands essential in the era of climate change. The emission of CH4 is influenced by various environmental factors, particularly salinity, playing a crucial role in microbial processes10. Freshwater wetlands contribute significantly to atmospheric methane due to their lower sulfate levels, which facilitates greater microbial CH4 production, whereas saltwater wetlands generally tend to emit less CH4 due to higher sulfate concentrations11,12,13.

CH4 emissions from coastal wetlands are generally controlled by two groups of microorganisms, known as methanogens and methanotrophs14. Methanogens produce CH4 in anoxic sediments by breaking down substrates like formate, acetate, hydrogen, or methylated compounds through a process known as methanogenesis15. The important enzyme in this pathway is methyl-coenzyme M reductase (MCR), as it catalyzes the final and rate-limiting step of methanogenesis15,16,17. The mcrA gene, which encodes the alpha subunit of MCR, is a functional marker that can be found in all methanogenic archaea18. Moreover, in coastal wetlands, the sulfate-methane transition zone (SMTZ) forms above the methanogenic zone, where methane diffusing upward and sulfate moving downward converge and are depleted19. Within this zone, anaerobic methanotrophic archaea (ANME) oxidize methane to carbon dioxide using the MCR enzyme, while sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) reduce sulfate to sulfide. SRB outcompete methanogens for hydrogen and acetate, limiting methane production until sulfate is depleted16,17.

In contrast, aerobic methanotrophic bacteria oxidize CH4 in aerobic environments20, utilizing different forms of methane monooxygenase (MMO). These include particulate methane monooxygenase (pMMO), a copper-containing enzyme embedded in the intracytoplasmic membrane, and soluble methane monooxygenase (sMMO), an iron-containing enzyme found in the cytoplasm. However, for pMMO, there are three gene operons pmoCAB21; among them, pmoA gene is the most conservative for all the methanotrophs. There are two different biomarker genes for pmoA: pmoA1 and pmoA222. Moreover, for a comprehensive understanding of methanotrophs, mmoX gene is used as a tool in molecular biology to identify sMMO-containing methanotrophs23. This distinction in metabolic pathways and environmental requirements of methanogens and aerobic methanotrophs highlights the complex microbial interactions regulating methane cycling in coastal wetland ecosystems.

The Boca Chica (BC) wetland, a productive saltwater environment in South Texas, experiences tidal influences from the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), leading to variable surface salinity levels, especially due to its proximity to the hypersaline Laguna Madre24. This tidal action, alternating between high and low tides, causes oxygen levels to fluctuate25 that might alter methanogen and methanotroph activity in sediments26. In contrast, coastal freshwater wetlands are considered to be a significant hotspot for CH4 fluxes27. The coastal freshwater wetlands in South Texas, including Resaca Del Rancho Viejo (RV) and Lozano Banco (LB), distant from the GOM's tidal effects, have distinct hydrological management. RV experiences pulse flows supplemented by river water during low water levels, whereas LB operates as an offline flow system without such supplementation. Moreover, RV and LB maintain lower salinity levels due to a high discharge of artificially pumped freshwater and being an oxbow lake, respectively. The different environmental factors can significantly influence methane cycling across South Texas coastal wetlands. However, methane cycling in South Texas coastal wetlands remains an area that has yet to be thoroughly investigated.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time PCR (also called quantitative PCR [qPCR]) represent fundamental and widely utilized techniques for detecting and quantifying the relative abundance of specific genes in environmental samples. These techniques specifically amplify targeted regions of DNA to indicate the presence and relative quantity of CH4 cycling-related genes, providing indicators of potential methane cycling. Nevertheless, the availability and efficacy of PCR primer sets might be limited by various inhibitory factors in the extracted environmental DNA, being impacted by the types of environments28,29. Thus, this study mainly established an optimal PCR method for detecting the presence of CH4 cycling-related genes in South Texas coastal wetlands (Figure 1) and then visualized their quantified relative abundance in these ecosystems. The results from this study can be applied to other coastal regions to enhance the understanding of CH4 cycling and microbial dynamics in diverse coastal ecosystems.

Protocol

1. Sample collection

  1. Collect sediment samples using a sediment grab sampler or shovel.
    NOTE: Samples were collected from two stations of three distinct coastal wetlands during cool (October-February, the average temperature is 20 Β°C) and warm (April-June, average temperature is 27 Β°C) seasons of 2023 and 2024. A sediment grab sampler was used when samples were collected from coastal freshwater wetlands (Figure 2) and a shovel was used for tidal-influenced coastal saltwater wetlands.
  2. Lower the sampler into the shallow waterbody first and allow it to sink to the sediment surface (within the top 50 cm) under its own weight, minimizing disturbance to the sediment structure as shown in Figure 2.
  3. Pull it out of the water column where the depth was typically 60 cm to 215 cm30, transfer the sediment samples to zip-lock bags, and store them in an ice box immediately.
    NOTE: Clean and wash the grab sampler with deionized (DI) water before proceeding to the next stations.
  4. Store all samples at -20 Β°C immediately in the laboratory.
  5. In each sampling site, measure surface water quality parameters such as salinity and temperature in situ using a multiparameter water quality meter.
    NOTE: The probes were rinsed with deionized water (DI water) after use in each station.

2. Genomic DNA extraction

  1. Thaw the samples at room temperature before starting the procedure for genomic DNA extraction.
  2. Transfer approximately 500 mg of sediment samples to a 15 mL tube and centrifuge at 4,250 Γ— g for 3 min to remove all water.
  3. Extract genomic DNA using a DNA extraction kit for soil following the manufacturer's protocol31 with a little modification and store at -20 Β°C immediately.
    NOTE: The changes were made to reduce redundancy and efficient workflow.
    1. Add up to 500 mg of soil sample to a glass bead/ceramic sphere-containing tube.
    2. Add 978 Β΅L of Sodium Phosphate Buffer to the sample in the bead/sphere-containing tube.
    3. Add 122 Β΅L of buffer lysis solution to the sample in the bead/sphere-containing tube to solubilize external contaminants.
    4. Homogenize using a bead mill homogenizer at 5x the speed level for 20 s and repeat 2x.
      NOTE: A bead mill homogenizer was used in this study, which is why the speed was adjusted.
    5. Centrifuge the mixture for 10 min at 14,000 Γ— g.
    6. Transfer the supernatant to a clean 2.0 mL microcentrifuge tube.
    7. Add 250 Β΅L of protein precipitation solution (PPS) to separate the solubilized nucleic acids from the cellular debris and lysing matrix. Mix by inverting the tube 10x.
    8. Centrifuge at 14,000 Γ— g for 5 min to precipitate the pellet, removing the cellular debris and lysing matrix.
    9. Transfer the supernatant to a clean 15 mL microcentrifuge tube.
    10. Add 1.0 mL of the Binding Matrix suspension to the supernatant in the 15 mL tube.
      NOTE: Shake the Binding Matrix suspension to resuspend before adding it.
    11. Allow the binding of DNA to the Binding Matrix by placing the tubes on a rotator for 2 min.
    12. Place all the tubes on a rack and incubate for 3 min to allow the settling of the Binding Matrix.
    13. After 3 min, discard 750 Β΅L and gently mix the remaining supernatant with the pellet using a pipette.
    14. Transfer 750 Β΅L of the mixture to a SPIN filter and centrifuge at 14,000 Γ— g for 1 min. Empty the catch tube and reuse it. Repeat with the remaining mixture.
    15. Add 500 Β΅L of the prepared wash solution (with the appropriate amount of ethanol added) to further solubilize impurities. Gently resuspend the pellet using the force of the liquid from the pipet tip.
    16. Centrifuge at 14,000 Γ— g for 1 min to remove impurities. Empty the catch tube and reuse it.
    17. Centrifuge again at 14,000 Γ— g for 2 min without adding anything.
    18. Replace the catch tube with a new, clean catch tube and air dry the SPIN Filter for 5 min at room temperature.
    19. Add 50 Β΅L DNAse free water (DES) and centrifuge at 14,000 Γ— g for 1 min.
      NOTE: In this protocol, 50 Β΅L of DES was used for DNA elution to ensure optimal recovery and stability of the extracted environmental DNA (eDNA).

3. DNA quantification

  1. Add 1 Β΅L of extracted DNA with 200 Β΅L of fluorescent dye in a 0.5 mL tube and mix thoroughly by pipetting.
  2. Wrap the tube immediately with aluminum foil so light cannot penetrate and incubate at room temperature for 5 min.
  3. Measure DNA concentration by using a fluorometer at ONE DNA concentration mode following the manufacturer's protocol.

4. Detection of 16S rRNA, pmoA1 , pmoA2 , mmoX , and mcrA by conventional PCR

  1. Before running conventional PCR (cPCR), thaw all samples and reagents in an ice bucket.
  2. Dilute all extracted eDNA samples to 10 ng/Β΅L.
    NOTE: A list of primers is given in Table 1.
  3. Prepare a 25 Β΅L cPCR reaction mixture for each sample, including 12.5 Β΅L of 2x PCR Master mix , 0.5 Β΅L of forward and reverse primers (10 Β΅M) (see Table 1 for primer list), 1 Β΅L of 10 ng/Β΅L eDNA, and 10.5 Β΅L of nuclease-free water.
    NOTE: Prepare the master mix with enough volume for one extra sample to minimize pipetting errors.
  4. Perform cPCR reaction following the protocol consisting of an initial denaturation at 95 Β°C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 95 Β°C for 45 s, extension at 72 Β°C for 30 s, and final extension at 72 Β°C for 5 m, with varying annealing temperature for different primers (see Table 1 for annealing temperatures of different primers used for different genes).
    NOTE: For mcrA gene,Β ML primers showed the desired band using a slow ramp rate of 0.1 Β°C/s between the annealing and extension steps for the first five cycles32.
  5. Visualize cPCR products in an agarose gel prestained with ethidium bromide (EtBr).
    NOTE: Use 2.5% agarose gel for a 50 bp ladder and 0.9% gel for a 1 kb ladder. Use 1x TAE buffer for a 2.5% agarose gel and 0.5x TAE buffer for a 0.9% agarose gel.

5. Detection of pmoA1 , pmoA2 , mmoX, and mcrA by quantitative real-time PCR

NOTE: Methanogen- and methanotroph-targeted genes such as pmoA1, pmoA2, mmoX, and mcrA abundance were observed by qPCR using a real-Time PCR system.

  1. Prepare the standards for each gene separately to obtain the standard curve for each gene.
    1. Amplify the targeted gene with cPCR, using the samples that produced the brightest band during the gel electrophoresis of each gene. Follow the method and primers described in section 4.
    2. Purify the amplified products using a gel extraction kit and measure the DNA concentration following the method described in section 3 and store at -20 Β°C.
      NOTE: Aliquot the purified standards into separate tubes for further use.
    3. Calculate gene copies from the measured DNA concentration using the copy number calculating website for qPCR.
    4. Dilute the calculated copy number of the standard with nuclease-free water to prepare each standard, ranging from 108 to 102 copies/Β΅L, before running the qPCR.
    5. Prepare the standard curve using three replicates of each copy number, including a negative control (NTC, no template DNA).
      NOTE: The R2 value of each standard curve was greater than 0.99.
  2. Prepare a 20 Β΅L qPCR reaction mixture for all samples, standards, and NTC. Perform the qPCR analysis in triplicates for all samples.
    1. Place all reaction components, including qPCR master mix, primers, nuclease-free water, standards, and samples, on an ice rack before beginning.
    2. Prepare a 20 Β΅L qPCR reaction mixture for each sample, standard, and NTC, containing 10 Β΅L of SYBR Green master mix, 0.5 Β΅L of each 10 Β΅M forward and reverse primers, 8 Β΅L of nuclease-free water, and 1 Β΅L of either 10 ng/Β΅L template DNA, or standard, or DI water respectively.
      NOTE: Use the primer sets shown to yield optimal results for pmoA1 and mcrA genes in conventional PCR for qPCR (see Table 1). To improve accuracy, run each sample in triplicate. The following steps provide an efficient method for preparing triplicate samples with a combined volume of 60 Β΅L per sample.
      1. Prepare the reaction mixture to combine the master mix, forward and reverse primers for the specific gene, and nuclease-free water in a 2 mL tube, except the template DNA.
        NOTE: Prepare the reaction mixture volume considering pipetting error. For example, if there are 24 samples and 8 standards, calculate the total volume for 33 reactions instead of 32 reactions to minimize pipetting errors. In this case, the total volume required for triplicate reactions would be as follows: 990 Β΅L of master mix (33 samples x 3 replicates x 10 Β΅L), 49.5 Β΅L of forward primers (33 samples x 3 replicates x 0.5 Β΅L), 49.5 Β΅L of reverse primers (33 samples x 3 replicates x 0.5 Β΅L), and 792 Β΅L of nuclease-free water (33 samples x 3 replicates x 8 Β΅L).
      2. Prepare PCR tubes according to the number of samples and standards.
      3. Dispense 57 Β΅L of the prepared reaction mixture into each PCR tube.
        NOTE: To perform qPCR for each sample in triplicate, prepare a total reaction mixture volume of 57 Β΅L per sample (excluding template DNA, standard, or water). This volume will be divided equally into three wells for one sample, with 19 Β΅L allocated to each well.
      4. Add 3 Β΅L of template DNA, standard, or nuclease-free water to each tube and mix by gently tapping the tube bottom.
        NOTE: The total volume of reaction mixture prepared for one sample would be 60 Β΅L now in each tube.
    3. Aliquot 20 Β΅L of the prepared reaction mixture from each tube into the designated wells of a 96-well qPCR plate. Seal the PCR plate with adhesive PCR Sealing Film using an applicator.
    4. Centrifuge the sealed plate at 1,000 Γ— g for 1 min to ensure proper mixing to eliminate any bubbles within the wells.
  3. Place the PCR plate in the thermal cycler. Turn on the qPCR machine and then open the related software to set up the protocol.
    1. Set up the protocol according to the qPCR master mix guidelines. Use the following protocol: 95 Β°C for 10 min, followed by 95 Β°C for 15 s, and an extension step at 72 Β°C for 30 s. Perform the annealing step at the annealing temperature specified for the relevant primers in Table 1 for 45 s. Conduct all qPCR runs for 35 cycles.
    2. Set up the 96-well qPCR plate with standards and NTCs in the same configuration as the sample-containing plate.
  4. Use the absolute quantification standard curve method to quantify the amplified product and the gene copy number in each sample33.

6. Visualizing methane-cycling genes in the map of South Texas Coastal wetlands

  1. Open geographic information system (GIS) software ArcGIS Pro and save the project file with the name Study Area in the specified folder on the computer.
  2. Click on Map in the top left | Basemap and select Terrain with Labels as the basemap.
  3. Click on Locate | Search and when the search bar opens up, locate the study area by typing the area's name; the area will show up.
  4. Draw the specific area using georeferencing.
    1. Click on View | Catalog Pane from the top layer.
    2. Double-click on Folder from the catalog | File Name.
    3. Right-click on geodatabase (.gdb) file and then click on New | Feature Class and Create Feature Class will show up.
    4. Type Name and Alias box and click Finish at the bottom.
    5. Click on View | Contents. The Alias name will show up in the Contents Pane.
    6. Click on Edit from the top layer | Create. The Create Features pane will open. Double-click on the Alias in Create Features pane, and the Configure Tool Feedback Options will appear.
    7. Select Lines, then sketch lines on the map to create an outside boundary of the study area. Double-click on the map when finished.
  5. Minimize GIS software, then open a spreadsheet. Type the sample name in the first column, enter the latitude in the second column, and the longitude in the third column. Use the next four columns for the qPCR data of pmoA1, pmoA2, mmoX, and mcrA.
  6. Save the file in CSV format in any specific folder of the computer.
  7. Open the GIS software again and click Add Data | XY Point Data.
  8. Select the CSV file from the folder on the computer in the Input Table box. Rename the file name in the Output Feature Class, then click Run to display the sampling points on the map.
  9. Click on thevsearch bar at the top and search Kriging.
  10. Select the sampling station file and then select pmoA1.
  11. Click the Environment | select the sampling station in layer and mask | click Run.
  12. Follow the protocols mentioned in steps 6.9, 6.10, and 6.11 to create Kriging for pmoA2, mmoX, and mcrA for all the study area.
  13. Create a layout of the map.
    1. Click on Insert from the top layer | New Layout, and select ANSI - Landscape.
    2. Click on Map Frame, select the map with the Kriging, and place all the maps in the layout by drawing a rectangle. This will make the map visible in the layout.
    3. Select the North Arrow and place it in the layout to indicate the North direction.
    4. Select Scale Bar to display the scale of the area on the map.
    5. Click on Legend to display the legends, then place it in the layout.
    6. Click Grid and select any of the black graticule options. This will create the grid with latitude and longitude and display it in the Contents Pane with the label Black Horizontal Label Graticule.
    7. Double-click on Black Horizontal Label Graticule, then select Components. Click on Ticks 1 and Grid, and remove these components by clicking on the cross sign to their right.
  14. Click on Share from the top layer, then click Export Layout. Select the file type as PDF, save the file on the computer using the Name Box, set the vertical resolution to 500 DPI, and click Export to create the PDF file of the map.

Results

To understand the distribution and abundance of CH4 cycling-related genes (mcrA, pmoA1, pmoA2, and mmoX) in the coastal wetlands of South Texas, the extracted eDNA from each sample was analyzed by cPCR and qPCR. Universal primers for each biomarker were selected to run cPCR from previous studies (Table 1)22,34,35,36,

Discussion

Coastal wetlands are recognized as significant contributors to atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas40. Although there have been studies on methane flux and methanogens in wetlands41,42,43, little is known about how methanotrophs operate across different environments or under various management practices, especially in wetlands with fluctuating water levels44. Moreover, ...

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to C-REAL members for their assistance in field observation and laboratory analyses.

Materials

NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
0.2 mL PCR tubesThermoFisher ScientificAB0620https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/AB0620?SID=srch-srp-AB0620
0.5 mL PCR TubesPromegaE4941https://www.promega.com/products/biochemicals-and-labware/tips-and-accessories/0_5ml-pcr-tubes/?catNum=E4941
10 ΞΌL tipsThermoFisher Scientific05-408-187Fisherbrand SureGrip Pipet Tip Racked or Reload System Tips Natural; 10ΞΌL; | Fisher Scientific
15 mL centrifuge tubeThermoFisher Scientific14-959-53Ahttps://www.fishersci.com/shop/products/falcon-15ml-conical-centrifuge-tubes-5/p-193301
200 ΞΌL tipsThermoFisher Scientific05-408-190Fisherbrand SureGrip Pipet Tip Racked or Reload System Tips Natural; 200ΞΌL; | Fisher Scientific
1000 ΞΌL tipsThermoFisher Scientific02-707-402https://www.fishersci.com/shop/products/sureone-micropoint-pipette-tips-specific-standard-fit/02707402?gclid=Cj0KCQiAp
NW6BhD5ARIsACmEb
kUsQ9Lu0YIq5i4vWege
17qPdtxIYZyvmJH1cDo
ARuwereO1V4GLz9UaA
lDREALw_wcB&ef_id=C
j0KCQiApNW6BhD5ARI
sACmEbkUsQ9Lu0YIq5i
4vWege17qPdtxIYZyvmJ
H1cDoARuwereO1V4GLz
9UaAlDREALw_wcB:G:s
&ppc_id=PLA_goog_2175
7693617_171052169911_02
707402__715434303113_1555
377385658230343&ev_chn=sh
op&s_kwcid=AL!4428!3!71543430
3113!!!g!2366517300713!&gad_source=1
Applied Biosystem Power SYBR Green Master MixΒ ThermoFisher Scientific4368577https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/4368577
ArcGIS ProΒ esrihttps://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview?srsltid=AfmBOopatJ4
JvHJfscHRcAaDx0Jz5_Jrl8l5
vYkkBvfOqE-uNSsMghN1
CFX Duet Real-Time PCR systemΒ Bio-Rad12016265https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/product/cfx-duet-real-time-pcr-system?ID=97722926-9ed9-16a4-1d83-c92f587e427a
Corning Lambda plus single channel pipettor
volume 0.5-10 ΞΌL
Sigma-AldrichCLS4071-1EAhttps://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sigma/cls4071
CorningΒ LambdaΒ plus single channel pipettor volume 100-1000Β ΞΌLSigma-AldrichCLS4075-1EAhttps://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sigma/cls4075
CorningΒ LambdaΒ plus single channel pipettor volume 20-200Β ΞΌLSigma-AldrichCLS4074-1EAhttps://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sigma/cls4074
FastDNA spin kit for soilMP Biomedical116560200-CFhttps://www.mpbio.com/us/116560000-fastdna-spin-kit-for-soil-samp-cf?srsltid=AfmBOoqOxxGilzY3IHNIZR
ajegGTr9MoX1oMZUh
3dcbJqe0UvvukY128
Gene copyΒ  calculatorScience Primerhttps://scienceprimer.com/copy-number-calculator-for-realtime-pcrΒ .
High speed benchtop centrifugeThermoFisher Scientific75004241https://newlifescientific.com/products/thermo-scientific-sorvall-st16-high-speed-benchtop-centrifuge-75004241?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiApN
W6BhD5ARIsACmEbkVC_-cCIN9j
20TvYq8iDsBlUR5cPK_1_wN
OBEcjMdv-CYVoGCfeOLYaAv
enEALw_wcB
High speed microcentrifugeVWR75838-336https://us.vwr.com/store/product/20546590/null
Lysing Matrix E tubeΒ glass bead/ceramic sphere-containing tube
Microcentrifuge tubeThermoFisher Scientific02-681-320https://www.fishersci.com/shop/products/fisherbrand-low-retention-microcentrifuge-tubes-8/02681320?gclid=Cj0KCQiAp
NW6BhD5ARIsACm
EbkWbG4_o3oUiGk
HJPU-_31-CuexDwQ
fmWPnfyhBOf2BHXsy
K3fFW1toaAgJbEALw_
wcB&ef_id=Cj0KCQiAp
NW6BhD5ARIsACmEb
kWbG4_o3oUiGkHJPU-
_31-CuexDwQfmWPnfy
hBOf2BHXsyK3fFW1toa
AgJbEALw_wcB:G:s&ppc
_id=PLA_goog_21757693
617_171052169911_0268
1320__715434303113_10
349826094968484711&ev
_chn=shop&s_kwcid=AL!4
428!3!715434303113!!!g!23
66517300713!&gad_source=1
PCR Master mixΒ PromegaM7502https://www.promega.com/products/pcr/taq-polymerase/master-mix-pcr/?catNum=M7502
Quantiflour ONE dsDNA systemΒ PromegaE4871https://www.promega.com/products/rna-analysis/dna-and-rna-quantitation/quantifluor-one-dsdna-system/?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD
_rg189yJTY3cxeVqMdu8RPx10
Ma&gclid=CjwKCAjwxNW2BhAk
EiwA24Cm9FUgViPNyWq7UfZL
VeeoroLAZ5JIP6w07RGK_4D0w
oZgAqf-G1XTmxoCxm8QAvD_B
wE&catNum=E4871
Quantus FluorometerΒ PromegaE6150https://www.promega.com/products/microplate-readers-fluorometers-luminometers/fluorometers/quantus-fluorometer/?catNum=E6150
YSI Pro 2030YSI a xylem brand603174https://www.ysi.com/product/id-p2030/pro2030-kits

References

  1. Xu, T., et al. Wetlands of international importance: Status, threats, and future protection. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 16 (10), 1818 (2019).
  2. Corn, M. L. . Deepwater Horizon oil spill: coastal wetland and wildlife impacts and response. , (2010).
  3. Hendriks, I. E., Sintes, T., Bouma, T. J., Duarte, C. M. Experimental assessment and modeling evaluation of the effects of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica on flow and particle trapping. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 356, 163-173 (2008).
  4. Krause, S. J. E., Treude, T. Deciphering cryptic methane cycling: Coupling of methylotrophic methanogenesis and anaerobic oxidation of methane in hypersaline coastal wetland sediment. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 302, 160-174 (2021).
  5. Reddy, K. R., DeLaune, R. D., Inglett, P. W. . Biogeochemistry of Wetlands: Science and Applications. , (2022).
  6. La, W., et al. Sulfate concentrations affect sulfate reduction pathways and methane consumption in coastal wetlands. Water Research. 217, 118441 (2022).
  7. Derwent, R. G. Global warming potential (GWP) for methane: Monte Carlo analysis of the uncertainties in Global Tropospheric Model predictions. Atmosphere. 11 (5), 486 (2020).
  8. Potter, C., et al. Methane emissions from natural wetlands in the United States: Satellite-derived estimation based on ecosystem carbon cycling. Earth Interactions. 10 (22), 1-12 (2006).
  9. . Understanding global warming potentials Available from: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials (2024)
  10. Wallenius, A. J., Dalcin Martins, P., Slomp, C. P., Jetten, M. S. M. Anthropogenic and environmental constraints on the microbial methane cycle in coastal sediments. Front Microbiol. 12, 631621 (2021).
  11. Qu, Y., et al. Salinity causes differences in stratigraphic methane sources and sinks. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology. 19, 100334 (2024).
  12. Vizza, C., West, W. E., Jones, S. E., Hart, J. A., Lamberti, G. A. Regulators of coastal wetland methane production and responses to simulated global change. Biogeosciences. 14 (2), 431-446 (2017).
  13. van Dijk, G., et al. Salinization lowers nutrient availability in formerly brackish freshwater wetlands; unexpected results from a long-term field experiment. Biogeochemistry. 143 (1), 67-83 (2019).
  14. Aronson, E., Allison, S., Helliker, B. R. Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function. Front Microbiol. 4, 225 (2013).
  15. Reeburgh, W. S. Oceanic methane biogeochemistry. Chem Rev. 107 (2), 486-513 (2007).
  16. Thauer, R. K. Biochemistry of methanogenesis: a tribute to Marjory Stephenson. Marjory Stephenson Prize Lecture. Microbiology (Reading). 144 (Pt 9), 2377-2406 (1998).
  17. Thauer, R. K. Anaerobic oxidation of methane with sulfate: on the reversibility of the reactions that are catalyzed by enzymes also involved in methanogenesis from CO2. Curr Opin Microbiol. 14 (3), 292-299 (2011).
  18. Friedrich, M. W. Methyl-coenzyme M reductase genes: Unique functional markers for methanogenic and anaerobic methane-oxidizing Archaea. Methods in Enzymology. 397, 428-442 (2005).
  19. Reeburgh, W. S. Oceanic methane biogeochemistry. Chem Rev. 107 (2), 486-513 (2007).
  20. Rasigraf, O., Schmitt, J., Jetten, M. S. M., LΓΌke, C. Metagenomic potential for and diversity of N-cycle driving microorganisms in the Bothnian Sea sediment. Microbiologyopen. 6 (4), e00475 (2017).
  21. McDonald, I. R., Bodrossy, L., Chen, Y., Murrell, J. C. Molecular ecology techniques for the study of aerobic methanotrophs. Appl Environ Microbiol. 74 (5), 1305-1315 (2008).
  22. Tchawa Yimga, M., Dunfield, P. F., Ricke, P., Heyer, J., Liesack, W. Wide distribution of a novel pmoA-like gene copy among type II methanotrophs, and its expression in Methylocystis strain SC2. Appl Environ Microbiol. 69 (9), 5593-5602 (2003).
  23. Knief, C. Diversity and habitat preferences of cultivated and uncultivated aerobic methanotrophic bacteria evaluated based on pmoA as molecular marker. Front Microbiol. 6, 1346 (2015).
  24. Huang, I. -. S., et al. Preliminary assessment of microbial community structure of Wind-Tidal Flats in the Laguna Madre, Texas, USA. Biology. 9 (8), 183 (2020).
  25. Wilding, T. K., Brown, E., Collier, K. J. Identifying dissolved oxygen variability and stress in tidal freshwater streams of northern New Zealand. Environ Monit Assess. 184 (10), 6045-6060 (2012).
  26. Roy Chowdhury, T., Mitsch, W. J., Dick, R. P. Seasonal methanotrophy across a hydrological gradient in a freshwater wetland. Ecological Engineering. 72, 116-124 (2014).
  27. Sun, Q. -. Q., et al. Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes: Seasonal dynamics from inland riparian ecosystems, northeast China. Sci Total Environ. 465, 48-55 (2013).
  28. Lee, S., et al. Comparison and selection of conventional PCR primer sets for studies associated with nitrogen cycle microorganisms in surface soil. Appl Sci. 12 (20), 10314 (2022).
  29. Bae, K. -. S., et al. Development of diagnostic systems for wide range and highly sensitive detection of two waterborne hepatitis viruses from groundwater using the conventional reverse transcription nested PCR assay. J Virol Methods. 299, 114344 (2022).
  30. Lecusay, D. . Assessment and Monitoring of Deltaic Wetlands and Fluvial Systems: Refining and Validating a Multimetric Index of Resaca Ecosystem Health. , (2021).
  31. . FastDNA SPIN Kit for Soil (Cat No. 116560200) Available from: https://www.mpbio.com/media/productattachment/LS082019-EN-FastDNA-SPIN-Kit-for-Soil-116560200-Manual.pdf (2025)
  32. Luton, P. E., Wayne, J. M., Sharp, R. J., Riley, P. W. The mcrA gene as an alternative to 16S rRNA in the phylogenetic analysis of methanogen populations in landfill. Microbiology (Reading, England). 148 (Pt 11), 3521-3530 (2002).
  33. Changsoo, L., Jaai, K., Seung Gu, S., Seokhwan, H. Absolute and relative QPCR quantification of plasmid copy number in Escherichia coli. J Biotechnol. 123 (3), 273-280 (2006).
  34. Harms, G., et al. Real-time PCR quantification of nitrifying bacteria in a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Environ Sci Technol. 37 (2), 343-351 (2003).
  35. Holmes, A. J., Costello, A., Lidstrom, M. E., Murrell, J. C. Evidence that particulate methane monooxygenase and ammonia monooxygenase may be evolutionarily related. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 132 (3), 203-208 (1995).
  36. Fuse, H., et al. Oxidation of trichloroethylene and dimethyl sulfide by a marine Methylomicrobium strain containing soluble methane monooxygenase. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 62 (10), 1925-1931 (1998).
  37. Springer, E., Sachs, M. S., Woese, C. R., Boone, D. R. Partial gene sequences for the A subunit of methyl-coenzyme M reductase (mcrI) as a phylogenetic tool for the family Methanosarcinaceae. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 45 (3), 554-559 (1995).
  38. Costello, A. M., Lidstrom, M. E. Molecular characterization of functional and phylogenetic genes from natural populations of methanotrophs in lake sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 65 (11), 5066-5074 (1999).
  39. Flores, E. A. . Effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Mangrove and Saltmarsh Habitats. , (2022).
  40. Minjie, H., Jordi, S., Xianyu, Y., Josep, P., Chuan, T. Patterns and environmental drivers of greenhouse gas fluxes in the coastal wetlands of China: A systematic review and synthesis. Environ Res. 186, 109576 (2020).
  41. Bridgham, S. D., Cadillo-Quiroz, H., Keller, J. K., Zhuang, Q. Methane emissions from wetlands: biogeochemical, microbial, and modeling perspectives from local to global scales. Glob Chang Biol. 19 (5), 1325-1346 (2013).
  42. Liu, D. Y., Ding, W. X., Jia, Z. J., Cai, Z. C. Relation between methanogenic archaea and methane production potential in selected natural wetland ecosystems across China. Biogeosciences. 8 (2), 329-338 (2011).
  43. Ke, Z., et al. Methane emissions and methanogenic community investigation from constructed wetlands in Chengdu City. Urban Climate. 39, 100956 (2021).
  44. Chowdhury, T. R., Dick, R. P. Ecology of aerobic methanotrophs in controlling methane fluxes from wetlands. Applied Soil Ecology. 65, 8-22 (2013).
  45. Maja, S., et al. Humic substances cause fluorescence inhibition in real-time polymerase chain reaction. Anal Biochem. 487, 30-37 (2015).
  46. Sanches, T. M., Schreier, A. D. Optimizing an eDNA protocol for estuarine environments: Balancing sensitivity, cost and time. PLOS ONE. 15 (5), e0233522 (2020).
  47. Xia, Z., et al. Conventional versus real-time quantitative PCR for rare species detection. Ecol Evol. 8 (23), 11799-11807 (2018).
  48. Bourne, D. G., McDonald, I. R., Murrell, J. C. Comparison of pmoA PCR primer sets as tools for investigating methanotroph diversity in three Danish soils. Appl Environ Microbiol. 67 (9), 3802-3809 (2001).
  49. Juottonen, H., Galand, P. E., Yrjala, K. Detection of methanogenic Archaea in peat: comparison of PCR primers targeting the mcrA gene. Res Microbiol. 157 (10), 914-921 (2006).
  50. Lueders, T., Friedrich, M. W. Evaluation of PCR amplification bias by terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of small-subunit rRNA and mcrA genes by using defined template mixtures of methanogenic pure cultures and soil DNA extracts. Appl Environ Microbiol. 69 (1), 320-326 (2003).
  51. Vaksmaa, A., Jetten, M. S., Ettwig, K. F., Luke, C. McrA primers for the detection and quantification of the anaerobic archaeal methanotroph 'Candidatus Methanoperedens nitroreducens'. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 101 (4), 1631-1641 (2017).
  52. Ren, G., et al. Electron acceptors for anaerobic oxidation of methane drive microbial community structure and diversity in mud volcanoes. Environ Microbiol. 20 (7), 2370-2385 (2018).
  53. Goldberg, C. S., et al. Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 7 (11), 1299-1307 (2016).
  54. McKee, A. M., Spear, S. F., Pierson, T. W. The effect of dilution and the use of a post-extraction nucleic acid purification column on the accuracy, precision, and inhibition of environmental DNA samples. Biological Conservation. 183, 70-76 (2015).
  55. Gohl, D. M., et al. Systematic improvement of amplicon marker gene methods for increased accuracy in microbiome studies. Nat Biotechnol. 34 (9), 942-949 (2016).
  56. Ballarini, A., Segata, N., Huttenhower, C., Jousson, O. Simultaneous quantification of multiple bacteria by the BactoChip microarray designed to target species-specific marker genes. PLOS ONE. 8 (2), e55764 (2013).
  57. Le Mer, J., Roger, P. Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of methane by soils: A review. Eur J Soil Biol. 37 (1), 25-50 (2001).
  58. Smith, C. J., Osborn, A. M. Advantages and limitations of quantitative PCR (Q-PCR)-based approaches in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 67 (1), 6-20 (2009).

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Explore More Articles

Methane CyclingCoastal WetlandsMethanogensMethanotrophsSouth TexasClimate ChangeGene DetectionBiomarkerMcrAPmoA1PmoA2MmoXSpatial DistributionTemporal DistributionGISArcGIS Pro

This article has been published

Video Coming Soon

JoVE Logo

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Research

Education

ABOUT JoVE

Copyright Β© 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved