Nitrospira

[backtotropical]

Question is in the title.

I am aware that at high ammonia levels, a different bacteria is encouraged which hinders the growth of the desired AOBs. Is the same true for high nitrite with NOBs?

As always, scientific discussion only please.

Cheers

BTT

 

[backtotropical]

Nobody?

 

[waterdrop]

Not ignoring you, extremely interested, just don't know the answer. Hovanec certainly doesn't seem to address that in the '96 article (or maybe I haven't read it enough, difficult slow reading for me!)

~~waterdrop~~
ps. I'm aware of the relevance to the couple of articles in the "New to" section

 

[backtotropical]

BTT to Bignose, come in Bignose? (et alia)

Recognise the latin, Waterdrop?

 

[Bignose]

I've seen the thread several times, BTT, but I just don't have any facts to share. If I had to guess, I'd be inclined to say that in all likelihood there is a similar reaction the NOB have to too much nitrite, but that's just because of how the AOB behaves. But, it is only a guess...

 

[waterdrop]

Thanks guys. Yes, so far, I think we just don't know. Bignose's hunch sounds good to me too, but probably just because it is convenient to copy the only shred of evidence we have (eg. what the AOBs do.)

BTT, you realize that by referring to the species as Nitrospira you may be pegging a name onto what is actually unknown? Unless Hovanec has done another study since the '96 one, I think his conclusion was that we really don't yet have definitive data on which chemoautolithotrophic bacteria are actually our friends, the NOBs. We know a species or combination of species is there doing the job but we don't actually know which species. (I don't mean that to sound so convincing - the Hovanec article is difficult and dense and I could have to retract this conclusion.)

~~waterdrop~~
ps. yes, BTT, assume you saw my previous latin reference?

 

[Bignose]

Thanks guys. Yes, so far, I think we just don't know. Bignose's hunch sounds good to me too, but probably just because it is convenient to copy the only shred of evidence we have (eg. what the AOBs do.)

BTT, you realize that by referring to the species as Nitrospira you may be pegging a name onto what is actually unknown? Unless Hovanec has done another study since the '96 one, I think his conclusion was that we really don't yet have definitive data on which chemoautolithotrophic bacteria are actually our friends, the NOBs. We know a species or combination of species is there doing the job but we don't actually know which species. (I don't mean that to sound so convincing - the Hovanec article is difficult and dense and I could have to retract this conclusion.)

~~waterdrop~~
ps. yes, BTT, assume you saw my previous latin reference?

Actually, I think that Nitrospira is pretty nailed down as the one -- hence the product name Bio-Spira -- and the relative success of that product compared with all its cycle-in-a-bottle competitiors. Though, I will admit that I am not 100% sure, either. I've browsed Hovanec and company's articles, but biology is not my strong suit, so I skipped most of the details.

"Our results from DGGE analysis, rRNA probing, and sequencing generally indicate that Nitrospira-like bacteria are the most likely candidates responsible for nitrite oxidation in freshwater aquaria." From Hovanec et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology

I think that there sounds like there is some wiggle room, since is it just "Nitrospira-like" that is the term used, but I think that that is more that the NOB are all pretty similar to one another, and that it isn't completely clear cut which species becomes dominant. It seems like a variety of NOB can all adapt to conditions, and while some are better than others, there isn't a definitive winner. Few things in life do have clear cut winners.

 

[waterdrop]

Thanks guys. Yes, so far, I think we just don't know. Bignose's hunch sounds good to me too, but probably just because it is convenient to copy the only shred of evidence we have (eg. what the AOBs do.)

BTT, you realize that by referring to the species as Nitrospira you may be pegging a name onto what is actually unknown? Unless Hovanec has done another study since the '96 one, I think his conclusion was that we really don't yet have definitive data on which chemoautolithotrophic bacteria are actually our friends, the NOBs. We know a species or combination of species is there doing the job but we don't actually know which species. (I don't mean that to sound so convincing - the Hovanec article is difficult and dense and I could have to retract this conclusion.)

~~waterdrop~~
ps. yes, BTT, assume you saw my previous latin reference?

Actually, I think that Nitrospira is pretty nailed down as the one -- hence the product name Bio-Spira -- and the relative success of that product compared with all its cycle-in-a-bottle competitiors. Though, I will admit that I am not 100% sure, either. I've browsed Hovanec and company's articles, but biology is not my strong suit, so I skipped most of the details.

"Our results from DGGE analysis, rRNA probing, and sequencing generally indicate that Nitrospira-like bacteria are the most likely candidates responsible for nitrite oxidation in freshwater aquaria." From Hovanec et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology

I think that there sounds like there is some wiggle room, since is it just "Nitrospira-like" that is the term used, but I think that that is more that the NOB are all pretty similar to one another, and that it isn't completely clear cut which species becomes dominant. It seems like a variety of NOB can all adapt to conditions, and while some are better than others, there isn't a definitive winner. Few things in life do have clear cut winners.

Sorry Bignose, didn't see that you'd added to this thread for awhile.

I'll have to go back and really study Hovanec's bacterial groupings and make some notes. You could very well be right. The sentence that had stuck out for me was:

"The data from our study indicate that the bacterial species responsible for nitrification in simple freshwater systems remain unknown." Hovanec et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Vol 62, 1996.

The article is indeed very dense for all of us who are not in the field - it is definately not my field but I'm continuing to try and understand the article.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[waterdrop]

Thanks guys. Yes, so far, I think we just don't know. Bignose's hunch sounds good to me too, but probably just because it is convenient to copy the only shred of evidence we have (eg. what the AOBs do.)

BTT, you realize that by referring to the species as Nitrospira you may be pegging a name onto what is actually unknown? Unless Hovanec has done another study since the '96 one, I think his conclusion was that we really don't yet have definitive data on which chemoautolithotrophic bacteria are actually our friends, the NOBs. We know a species or combination of species is there doing the job but we don't actually know which species. (I don't mean that to sound so convincing - the Hovanec article is difficult and dense and I could have to retract this conclusion.)

~~waterdrop~~
ps. yes, BTT, assume you saw my previous latin reference?

Actually, I think that Nitrospira is pretty nailed down as the one -- hence the product name Bio-Spira -- and the relative success of that product compared with all its cycle-in-a-bottle competitiors. Though, I will admit that I am not 100% sure, either. I've browsed Hovanec and company's articles, but biology is not my strong suit, so I skipped most of the details.

"Our results from DGGE analysis, rRNA probing, and sequencing generally indicate that Nitrospira-like bacteria are the most likely candidates responsible for nitrite oxidation in freshwater aquaria." From Hovanec et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology

I think that there sounds like there is some wiggle room, since is it just "Nitrospira-like" that is the term used, but I think that that is more that the NOB are all pretty similar to one another, and that it isn't completely clear cut which species becomes dominant. It seems like a variety of NOB can all adapt to conditions, and while some are better than others, there isn't a definitive winner. Few things in life do have clear cut winners.

Sorry Bignose, didn't see that you'd added to this thread for awhile.

I'll have to go back and really study Hovanec's bacterial groupings and make some notes. You could very well be right. The sentence that had stuck out for me was:

"The data from our study indicate that the bacterial species responsible for nitrification in simple freshwater systems remain unknown." Hovanec et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Vol 62, 1996.

The article is indeed very dense for all of us who are not in the field - it is definately not my field but I'm continuing to try and understand the article.

~~waterdrop~~

Hi Bignose (et alia),

Interestingly I noticed that James Koga, who wrote one of the good fishless articles that was published in FAMA has added an update to his article on his web site here:

http/www.csupomona.edu/~jskoga/Aquariums/Ammonia.html

In Update number 4 he mentions Hovanec et. al. "have pointed out that the common nitrifying bacteria in freshwater aquarium systems are NOT Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter." but he doesn't go on to say that Nitrospira were found to be the correct species, in fact he makes it sound like the true species is not known. But he does point out that this is unlikely to make any practical difference to the procedures we use, it just lowers confidence in various tips about optimizing for them.

Anyway, thought you would be interested if you have not seen this and would be interested in any comments.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[pastabake]

If they're anything like their terrestrial counterparts there'll be more than one species and very difficult to, or not presently possible to culture. Likewise in soil there are 1 billion organisms and 10,000 different species per gram ... makes you think

 

[backtotropical]

Ok, after some digging, i may have some info.

The Department of Environmental Sciences and Biotechnology, Hallym University seem to have found that the level of nitrite does have an effect.

Effect of nitrite concentration on the distribution and competition of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria in nitratation reactor systems and their kinetic characteristics.

They go on to say that basically, Nitrospira will flourish at lower nitrite levels (like in our aquariums possibly?), and Nitrobacters will dominate where higher nitrite concentrations prevail.

This seems to be the same kind of thing which we have established happens with the AOBs, where a different bacteria dominates at higher concentrations.

This would suggest then, that the big water change during fishless cycling to reduce nitrite levels, recently advocated by various members here on TFF (myself included), may actually benefit the cycle. This is because, at higher levels, Nitrobacters may flourish and subsequently die off when nitrite is processed down to lower levels, leaving Nitrospira to colonise almost from scratch before we appear to be 'cycled'?

I suppose it all depends on establishing which nitrite concentration level each bacteria will thrive at? Unfortunately, i've not found any information on this.

Its not conclusive, but it's a good theory, i think.

Any thoughts?

BTT

 

[pastabake]

It seems logical to make such an assumption, and the nitrite spike and its time frame IMO points to some inhibiting effect ... I just don't buy the other explanations as to why a ubiquitous bacteria should take longer to establish when it clearly responds (once established) to available nutrients the same.

The question here is how do we design an experiment that will provide proof? TBO without a lot of equipment etc its not really going to be possible to really pin it down scientifically.

I've been thinking about this and I have a tank that needs cycling ... my initial thoughts were on running a modified version of the add daily and water changes.

I wonder if Bignose would be kind enough to do one of his models to work it all out so that nitrites would never go beyond say 4-5ppm.

 

[Bignose]

It seems logical to make such an assumption, and the nitrite spike and its time frame IMO points to some inhibiting effect ... I just don't buy the other explanations as to why a ubiquitous bacteria should take longer to establish when it clearly responds (once established) to available nutrients the same.

The question here is how do we design an experiment that will provide proof? TBO without a lot of equipment etc its not really going to be possible to really pin it down scientifically.

I've been thinking about this and I have a tank that needs cycling ... my initial thoughts were on running a modified version of the add daily and water changes.

I wonder if Bignose would be kind enough to do one of his models to work it all out so that nitrites would never go beyond say 4-5ppm.

A model isn't worth much because I don't have a number for the growth rates/initial size of the nitrite oxidizing bacteria. But, something like a 70-80% daily water change is probably going to be close. Just remember that 1 ppm of ammonia does not turn into 1 ppm of nitrite. 1 ppm of ammonia is converted to something like 3.6 ppm of nitrite.

 

[waterdrop]

It seems logical to make such an assumption, and the nitrite spike and its time frame IMO points to some inhibiting effect ... I just don't buy the other explanations as to why a ubiquitous bacteria should take longer to establish when it clearly responds (once established) to available nutrients the same.

The question here is how do we design an experiment that will provide proof? TBO without a lot of equipment etc its not really going to be possible to really pin it down scientifically.

I've been thinking about this and I have a tank that needs cycling ... my initial thoughts were on running a modified version of the add daily and water changes.

I wonder if Bignose would be kind enough to do one of his models to work it all out so that nitrites would never go beyond say 4-5ppm.

A model isn't worth much because I don't have a number for the growth rates/initial size of the nitrite oxidizing bacteria. But, something like a 70-80% daily water change is probably going to be close. Just remember that 1 ppm of ammonia does not turn into 1 ppm of nitrite. 1 ppm of ammonia is converted to something like 3.6 ppm of nitrite.

BTT has been quoting that 1ppm ammonia is processed into 2.7ppm of nitrite. BTT, any idea where you got that from? Or Bignose, the 3.6 figure? (although, the general significance to us of either number is about the same -- just knowing that there is a multiplying effect is the more important thing..)

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Bignose]

ammonia is NH3, which has a molecular weight of (14+3*1) =17 g per mole. (14 from N, 1 from H)

nitrite is NO2, which has a molecular weight of (14 + 2*16) = 46 g per mole (16 from O)

nitrate is NO3, which has a molecular weight of 62 g per mole

there is a stoichiometric balance in the ammonia to nitrite to nitrate. That is, the 1 N atom in ammonia is the same 1 atom in the nitrite and nitrate, so the mass increases. ppm is supposed to be a like unit divided by a like unit, but at very dilute concentrations, a mg/L is almost exactly the same as a ppm. So, the molecular weights can be used to calculate the ratios

1 mg/L of ammonia becomes 2.7 mg/L of nitrite becomes 3.6 mg/L of nitrate. And since mg/L is pretty close to the same to as ppm, those ratios are the same for ppm.

I must have been thinking of nitrate, not nitrite when I put that figure up.