Abstract

Nitrate leaching from agricultural soils is increasingly found in groundwater, a primary source of drinking water worldwide. This nitrate influx can potentially stimulate the biological oxidation of iron in anoxic groundwater reservoirs. Nitrate-dependent iron-oxidizing (NDFO) bacteria have been extensively studied in laboratory settings, yet their ecophysiology in natural environments remains largely unknown. To this end, we established a pilot-scale filter on nitrate-rich groundwater to elucidate the structure and metabolism of nitrate-reducing iron-oxidizing microbiomes under oligotrophic conditions mimicking natural groundwaters. The enriched community stoichiometrically removed iron and nitrate consistently with the NDFO metabolism. Genome-resolved metagenomics revealed the underlying metabolic network between the dominant iron-dependent denitrifying autotrophs and the less abundant organoheterotrophs. The most abundant genome belonged to a new Candidate order, named Siderophiliales. This new species, “Candidatus Siderophilus nitratireducens,” carries genes central genes to iron oxidation (cytochrome c cyc2), carbon fixation (rbc), and for the sole periplasmic nitrate reductase (nap). Using thermodynamics, we demonstrate that iron oxidation coupled to nap based dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to nitrite is energetically favorable under realistic Fe3+/Fe2+ and NO3/NO2 concentration ratios. Ultimately, by bridging the gap between laboratory investigations and nitrate real-world conditions, this study provides insights into the intricate interplay between nitrate and iron in groundwater ecosystems, and expands our understanding of NDFOs taxonomic diversity and ecological role.

Introduction

Globally, approximately one-third of the nitrogen applied to agricultural soils is lost via leaching to the surrounding waterbodies [1]. This has led to elevated nitrate (NO3) levels in anoxic groundwaters, a primary source of drinking water worldwide [2]. Owing to population growth and agriculture intensification, nitrate concentrations in subsurface waters are expected to continue increasing [3]. Besides its direct impact on human health [4], nitrate can significantly alter the biogeochemistry of groundwater reservoirs [5]. Nitrate promotes the oxidation of sulfide and in particular of iron (Fe) – the most prevalent groundwater contaminant – leading to the formation of oxides with high adsorption capacity and the emission of greenhouse gases [6]. Despite these implications, the consequences of nitrate–iron interactions on ecosystems and drinking water production systems remain largely unexplored. A detailed understanding of the underlying principles is paramount for anticipating and mitigating current and future challenges, as well as for exploring potential synergies and biotechnological opportunities.

Nitrate-dependent iron-oxidizing (NDFO) bacteria, also referred to as nitrate-reducing iron-oxidizers (NRFO) [7, 8], couple the anoxic reduction of nitrate to the oxidation of Fe2+ (eq. 1). Since their discovery in 1996 by Straub et al. [9], NDFO microorganisms have been the focus of extensive research both in pure and mixed cultures (reviewed in [10]), and several complete genomes are already publicly available [11, 12]. The metabolic versatility of NDFO bacteria spans from lithoautotrophic to mixotrophic growth [10], to partial denitrification using nitric oxide (NO) [13] and nitrous oxide (N2O) [11] as terminal electron acceptors. At the same time, due to the inherently low energetic yield of iron oxidation, NDFO bacteria live close to the thermodynamic edge [14]. Their fitness is highly dependent on environmental factors such as substrate and product availability, pH and temperature [15]. Chemical reactions – such as the quasi-instantaneous precipitation of the biologically formed Fe3+ − can play a pivotal role by modulating iron and nitrogen concentrations [16]. However, our current understanding is largely based on laboratory settings, and does not necessarily reflect the complexity of natural and engineered ecosystems where several (a)biotic reactions occur simultaneously at temperatures significantly lower than tested to date [17].

(1)

To address these knowledge gaps, we established a pilot-scale filter on anoxic groundwater containing both Fe2+ and NO3. The emulated groundwater conditions allowed for the establishment of a microbial enrichment that simultaneously removed Fe2+ and NO3. In depth metagenomic analysis of the steady-state community revealed a new order-level NDFO lineage, deepening our understanding of their taxonomic diversity and ecological roles. Overall, our study bridges the gap between laboratory studies and real-world conditions, and offers a nuanced view on the intricate interplay between nitrate and iron in groundwater ecosystems.

Results

Nitrate-dependent iron removal irrespective of the limiting nutrient

A pilot-scale, granular activated-carbon filter was fed with nitrate-rich anoxic groundwater for 120 days. Stable anoxic nitrate and iron removals were achieved after less than 3 weeks of operation and maintained for over 100 days (Fig. 1). With nitrate as the limiting nutrient at both groundwater (8.9 ± 2.8 μM) and nitrate-amended concentrations (13.5 ± 1.5 and 20.2 ± 2.4 μM), effluent nitrate concentrations were consistently below detection limit (1 μM). Throughout the nitrate-limiting period, NO3 and Fe2+ were consumed at a 7.1 ± 1.4 Fe2+:NO3 molar ratio (Fig. S3). Oxygen was always below the quantification limit of 3 μM. Roughly 80 μC-mol dissolved organic carbon (DOC·l−1) was consistently removed from the influent, likely due to Fe2+–DOC complexes formation owing to the non-biodegradable nature of organic matter in the groundwater matrix (<1.2 μC-mol·l−1 assimilable organic matter). Ammonia consumption was negligible (<0.1 μM). Effluent nitrite concentrations stayed below the detection limit (<0.2 μM), while other denitrification intermediates – nitric oxide and nitrous oxide – were not measured. The observed consistent stoichiometric coupling between nitrate and iron removals strongly suggests Fe2+ oxidation to be primarily driven by microbial nitrate-reducing iron oxidation.

Simultaneous NO3− (A) and Fe2+(B) removals in the groundwater-fed pilot-scale filter during the 120 days of continuous operation. The groundwater Fe2+ concentration was constant throughout the experiment (236 ± 4 μM). NO3− was dosed in the influent to increase the natural groundwater concentration in steps from 8.1 ± 2.1 to 20.2 ± 2.4 μM (NO3− limitation), and up to 83.8 ± 0.6 μM (Fe2+ limitation). Fe2+ and NO3− were proportionally removed throughout the whole experiment, regardless of the limiting nutrient (see Fig. SI 3).
Figure 1

Simultaneous NO3 (A) and Fe2+(B) removals in the groundwater-fed pilot-scale filter during the 120 days of continuous operation. The groundwater Fe2+ concentration was constant throughout the experiment (236 ± 4 μM). NO3 was dosed in the influent to increase the natural groundwater concentration in steps from 8.1 ± 2.1 to 20.2 ± 2.4 μM (NO3 limitation), and up to 83.8 ± 0.6 μM (Fe2+ limitation). Fe2+ and NO3 were proportionally removed throughout the whole experiment, regardless of the limiting nutrient (see Fig. SI 3).

Microbial community dominated by iron oxidizers and denitrifiers

Metagenomic DNA sequencing yielded a total of 107 512 and 8 754 261 quality filtered short and long reads, respectively. After assembly and polishing, this resulted in 19 127 contigs with an N50 value of 15 927. Contigs binning resulted in 13 high (>90% completeness and <5% contamination; containing full-length 23S, 16S, and 5S ribosomal RNA genes and ≥18 transfer RNA genes) and medium (completeness >50% and contamination <10%) quality metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) as defined by [18] with a relative abundance exceeding 0.5% of the quality filtered long reads. Collectively, these 13 most abundant genomes accounted for 66.9% of the total quality filtered reads, and belonged to four phyla: Proteobacteria (51.6%), Actinobacteria (8.3%), Bacteroidetes (5.6%), and Chloroflexi (1.4%) (Table 1). All genomes in the community contained at least one gene encoding for a denitrifying enzyme, and five featured the genetic potential for iron oxidation. Notably, all putative iron oxidizers also possessed the genetic repertoire for carbon fixation. The most abundant MAG (MAG.13), accounting for 19.3% of the community, could only be taxonomically classified at class level (Gammaproteobacteria). Given its high abundance and potential metabolic relevance, the taxonomy and metabolic potential of MAG.13 was further investigated (Table S1).

Table 1

General characteristics of the MAGs recovered from the pilot-scale filter. The last three columns indicate the presence/absence of the essential genes for iron oxidation, denitrification, and carbon fixation via the reductive phosphate pentose phosphate cycle. Cov_il and cov_np are the coverage with Illumina short reads and Nanopore long reads, respectively.

MAG IDPhyloegnetic affiliationPhylumRelative abundance (%)ScaffoldsN50GC (%)Completeness (%)Contamination (%)cov_Ilcov_npCoding genesMAG qualityIron oxidationaDenitrificationbCarbon fixationc
MAG.13**Candidatus Siderophilus nitratireducens”Proteobacteria19.3918,97 0075698.591.73298.27300.863217HighYesNO3+ − > NO2Yes
MAG.26f__GallionellaceaeProteobacteria10.0105,69 2645595.810.95234.92155.813749HighYesNO3+ − > NO; N2O - > N2Yes
MAG.18f__AnaeromyxobacteraceaeProteobacteria8.6215,18 4147398.060.65186.12131.884018HighNoN2O - > N2No
MAG.19g__DevosiaProteobacteria6.52741,38 4656499.280.1424.53100.334029HighNoNO2 - > NONo
MAG.10f__ChitinophagaceaeBacteroidetes5.6436,46 6314097.540.9304.8387.013193HighNoNO - > N2No
MAG.03o__NanopelagicalesActinobactiria4.3117,79 60569992.37140.4167.494065HighNoNO3 - > NONo
MAG.27o__NanopelagicalesActinobactiria3.9911,66 2787198.31.98140.5660.773910HighNoNO3 - > NONo
MAG.34g__GallionellaProteobacteria3.511246 6075795.913.2564.3952.652516HighYesNO3 - > NOYes
MAG.00o__AnaerolinealesChloroflexi1.41001,14 3385597.272.9121.9320.044828HighNoNO2 - > NONo
MAG.08g__RhodoferaxProteobacteria1.212169 1716388.952.3733.6417.423870MediumNoNO3 - > NOYes
MAG.04f__RhizobiaceaeProteobacteria0.911580 8096095.124.125.9713.934768HighNoNO3 - > N2ONo
MAG.16f__GallionellaceaeProteobacteria0.916527 2265688.513.9452.7613.553002MediumYesNO3 - > N2OYes
MAG.29g__RhizobacterProteobacteria0.725725 5116694.544.5421.739.944225MediumYesNO3+ − > NO2Yes
MAG IDPhyloegnetic affiliationPhylumRelative abundance (%)ScaffoldsN50GC (%)Completeness (%)Contamination (%)cov_Ilcov_npCoding genesMAG qualityIron oxidationaDenitrificationbCarbon fixationc
MAG.13**Candidatus Siderophilus nitratireducens”Proteobacteria19.3918,97 0075698.591.73298.27300.863217HighYesNO3+ − > NO2Yes
MAG.26f__GallionellaceaeProteobacteria10.0105,69 2645595.810.95234.92155.813749HighYesNO3+ − > NO; N2O - > N2Yes
MAG.18f__AnaeromyxobacteraceaeProteobacteria8.6215,18 4147398.060.65186.12131.884018HighNoN2O - > N2No
MAG.19g__DevosiaProteobacteria6.52741,38 4656499.280.1424.53100.334029HighNoNO2 - > NONo
MAG.10f__ChitinophagaceaeBacteroidetes5.6436,46 6314097.540.9304.8387.013193HighNoNO - > N2No
MAG.03o__NanopelagicalesActinobactiria4.3117,79 60569992.37140.4167.494065HighNoNO3 - > NONo
MAG.27o__NanopelagicalesActinobactiria3.9911,66 2787198.31.98140.5660.773910HighNoNO3 - > NONo
MAG.34g__GallionellaProteobacteria3.511246 6075795.913.2564.3952.652516HighYesNO3 - > NOYes
MAG.00o__AnaerolinealesChloroflexi1.41001,14 3385597.272.9121.9320.044828HighNoNO2 - > NONo
MAG.08g__RhodoferaxProteobacteria1.212169 1716388.952.3733.6417.423870MediumNoNO3 - > NOYes
MAG.04f__RhizobiaceaeProteobacteria0.911580 8096095.124.125.9713.934768HighNoNO3 - > N2ONo
MAG.16f__GallionellaceaeProteobacteria0.916527 2265688.513.9452.7613.553002MediumYesNO3 - > N2OYes
MAG.29g__RhizobacterProteobacteria0.725725 5116694.544.5421.739.944225MediumYesNO3+ − > NO2Yes
a

Based on FeGenie [19]. “Yes” if either cyc2, cyc1, foxABC, foxEYZ, sulfocyanin, pioABC, or mtoAB are present.

b

Based on GhostKOALA [20] and the presence of napAB or narGHI (K02567, K02568, or K00370, K00371, K00374; NO3 → NO2), nirK or nirS (K00368, K15864; NO2 → NO), norBC (K04561, K02305; NO → N2O), nosZ (K00376; N2O → N2) from denitrification (M00529).

c

Based on GhostKOALA [20]. “Yes” if either rbcL (K01601) or rbcS (K01602) and prkB (K00855) from reductive phosphate pentose phosphate cycle (Calvin Cycle) (M00165).

**Initially classified as c_Gammaproteobacteria.

Table 1

General characteristics of the MAGs recovered from the pilot-scale filter. The last three columns indicate the presence/absence of the essential genes for iron oxidation, denitrification, and carbon fixation via the reductive phosphate pentose phosphate cycle. Cov_il and cov_np are the coverage with Illumina short reads and Nanopore long reads, respectively.

MAG IDPhyloegnetic affiliationPhylumRelative abundance (%)ScaffoldsN50GC (%)Completeness (%)Contamination (%)cov_Ilcov_npCoding genesMAG qualityIron oxidationaDenitrificationbCarbon fixationc
MAG.13**Candidatus Siderophilus nitratireducens”Proteobacteria19.3918,97 0075698.591.73298.27300.863217HighYesNO3+ − > NO2Yes
MAG.26f__GallionellaceaeProteobacteria10.0105,69 2645595.810.95234.92155.813749HighYesNO3+ − > NO; N2O - > N2Yes
MAG.18f__AnaeromyxobacteraceaeProteobacteria8.6215,18 4147398.060.65186.12131.884018HighNoN2O - > N2No
MAG.19g__DevosiaProteobacteria6.52741,38 4656499.280.1424.53100.334029HighNoNO2 - > NONo
MAG.10f__ChitinophagaceaeBacteroidetes5.6436,46 6314097.540.9304.8387.013193HighNoNO - > N2No
MAG.03o__NanopelagicalesActinobactiria4.3117,79 60569992.37140.4167.494065HighNoNO3 - > NONo
MAG.27o__NanopelagicalesActinobactiria3.9911,66 2787198.31.98140.5660.773910HighNoNO3 - > NONo
MAG.34g__GallionellaProteobacteria3.511246 6075795.913.2564.3952.652516HighYesNO3 - > NOYes
MAG.00o__AnaerolinealesChloroflexi1.41001,14 3385597.272.9121.9320.044828HighNoNO2 - > NONo
MAG.08g__RhodoferaxProteobacteria1.212169 1716388.952.3733.6417.423870MediumNoNO3 - > NOYes
MAG.04f__RhizobiaceaeProteobacteria0.911580 8096095.124.125.9713.934768HighNoNO3 - > N2ONo
MAG.16f__GallionellaceaeProteobacteria0.916527 2265688.513.9452.7613.553002MediumYesNO3 - > N2OYes
MAG.29g__RhizobacterProteobacteria0.725725 5116694.544.5421.739.944225MediumYesNO3+ − > NO2Yes
MAG IDPhyloegnetic affiliationPhylumRelative abundance (%)ScaffoldsN50GC (%)Completeness (%)Contamination (%)cov_Ilcov_npCoding genesMAG qualityIron oxidationaDenitrificationbCarbon fixationc
MAG.13**Candidatus Siderophilus nitratireducens”Proteobacteria19.3918,97 0075698.591.73298.27300.863217HighYesNO3+ − > NO2Yes
MAG.26f__GallionellaceaeProteobacteria10.0105,69 2645595.810.95234.92155.813749HighYesNO3+ − > NO; N2O - > N2Yes
MAG.18f__AnaeromyxobacteraceaeProteobacteria8.6215,18 4147398.060.65186.12131.884018HighNoN2O - > N2No
MAG.19g__DevosiaProteobacteria6.52741,38 4656499.280.1424.53100.334029HighNoNO2 - > NONo
MAG.10f__ChitinophagaceaeBacteroidetes5.6436,46 6314097.540.9304.8387.013193HighNoNO - > N2No
MAG.03o__NanopelagicalesActinobactiria4.3117,79 60569992.37140.4167.494065HighNoNO3 - > NONo
MAG.27o__NanopelagicalesActinobactiria3.9911,66 2787198.31.98140.5660.773910HighNoNO3 - > NONo
MAG.34g__GallionellaProteobacteria3.511246 6075795.913.2564.3952.652516HighYesNO3 - > NOYes
MAG.00o__AnaerolinealesChloroflexi1.41001,14 3385597.272.9121.9320.044828HighNoNO2 - > NONo
MAG.08g__RhodoferaxProteobacteria1.212169 1716388.952.3733.6417.423870MediumNoNO3 - > NOYes
MAG.04f__RhizobiaceaeProteobacteria0.911580 8096095.124.125.9713.934768HighNoNO3 - > N2ONo
MAG.16f__GallionellaceaeProteobacteria0.916527 2265688.513.9452.7613.553002MediumYesNO3 - > N2OYes
MAG.29g__RhizobacterProteobacteria0.725725 5116694.544.5421.739.944225MediumYesNO3+ − > NO2Yes
a

Based on FeGenie [19]. “Yes” if either cyc2, cyc1, foxABC, foxEYZ, sulfocyanin, pioABC, or mtoAB are present.

b

Based on GhostKOALA [20] and the presence of napAB or narGHI (K02567, K02568, or K00370, K00371, K00374; NO3 → NO2), nirK or nirS (K00368, K15864; NO2 → NO), norBC (K04561, K02305; NO → N2O), nosZ (K00376; N2O → N2) from denitrification (M00529).

c

Based on GhostKOALA [20]. “Yes” if either rbcL (K01601) or rbcS (K01602) and prkB (K00855) from reductive phosphate pentose phosphate cycle (Calvin Cycle) (M00165).

**Initially classified as c_Gammaproteobacteria.

Candidatus Siderophilus nitratireducens” represents a new order within Gammaproteobacteria

Our phylogenomic analysis based on the concatenated amino acid sequences of 120 bacterial single copy conservative marker genes revealed that MAG.13 (98.6% completeness, 1.7% contamination) belongs to a bacterium forming a new order-level lineage Ga0077554 (GTDB release 08-RS214), within the class Gammaproteobacteria, with no known closely related pure-culture representatives (Fig. 2). We propose to name the new species “Candidatus Siderophilus nitratireducens” gen.nov., sp.nov., a member of the Candidate order and family Siderophiliales and Siderophiliaceae, respectively. This lineage, along with several other MAGs from similar groundwater habitats [21], is mostly related to lineages including lithoautotrophic sulfur-oxidizing bacteria from the genera Sulfuriflexus, Thioalbus, and the members of the order Thiohalomonadales, including Thiohalomonas, Sulfurivermis, and Thiohalophilus. Average nucleotide identity and in-silico calculated DNA–DNA hybridization comparison between “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” and its closest relative, a MAG from a drinking water treatment plant (GCA_001464965.1), indicated that the two organisms belong to the same genus but different species (ANI = 89%, DDH = 36.6%).

Phylogenetic position of the “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” based on sequence analyses of concatenated alignment of 120 single-copy conserved bacterial protein markers [22] – taxonomic designations correspond to the Genome Taxonomy DataBase 207). The trees were built using IQ-TREE2 [23] with approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches [24]. Bootstrap consensus tree is shown with values above 90% placed at the nodes. Bar, 0.10 changes per position.
Figure 2

Phylogenetic position of the “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” based on sequence analyses of concatenated alignment of 120 single-copy conserved bacterial protein markers [22] – taxonomic designations correspond to the Genome Taxonomy DataBase 207). The trees were built using IQ-TREE2 [23] with approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches [24]. Bootstrap consensus tree is shown with values above 90% placed at the nodes. Bar, 0.10 changes per position.

Autotrophy in “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens”

To resolve the main anabolic and catabolic pathways of “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens,” open reading frames (ORFs) were predicted and annotated (Table 2, detailed version in Table S1). The genome contains marker genes coding for two key proteins of autotrophic CO2 fixation via the reductive pentose phosphate (Calvin–Benson–Bassham; CBB) cycle, including the large and small subunits of the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase (rbcLS form I) and the phosphoribulokinase (prk). Genes encoding for carboxysomal shell proteins and carbonic anhydrase were also present, further supporting the inorganic carbon uptake ability of “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens”. The absence of phosphofructokinase (pfk) indicates a modified glycolytic pathway initiating at the glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate level. All tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle genes were identified except for fumarate hydratase (fh). However, the glyoxylate shunt enzymes malate synthase (glcB) and isocitrate lyase (aceA) were present. Taken together, these findings suggest the capability for full autotrophic growth of “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens.”

Table 2

Key enzyme of the main catabolic and anabolic pathways of “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens.” “+” and “–“indicate presence or absence in the genome. CBB, Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle; TCA, Tricarboxylic acid cycle/Krebs cycle.

Electron acceptorElectron donorCarbon fixationCarbon metabolism
ElementKey genesPresenceElementKey genesPresencePathwayKey genesPresencePathwayKey genesPresence
NitrogennapABCD+Ironcyc2+CBBrbcLS form I+Gycolysispfk
narGHIcyc1prk+gpml+
nirKS/norBC/nosZmtoABCarboxysome+TCA cyclecs / gltA+
SulfuraprABSulfursqr(+)sucAB+
soxXABYZ(CD)fccABfh
OxygenccoNOP+mdh+
qoxABCDGlyxoylate shuntglcB+
cydABXaceA+
Electron acceptorElectron donorCarbon fixationCarbon metabolism
ElementKey genesPresenceElementKey genesPresencePathwayKey genesPresencePathwayKey genesPresence
NitrogennapABCD+Ironcyc2+CBBrbcLS form I+Gycolysispfk
narGHIcyc1prk+gpml+
nirKS/norBC/nosZmtoABCarboxysome+TCA cyclecs / gltA+
SulfuraprABSulfursqr(+)sucAB+
soxXABYZ(CD)fccABfh
OxygenccoNOP+mdh+
qoxABCDGlyxoylate shuntglcB+
cydABXaceA+
Table 2

Key enzyme of the main catabolic and anabolic pathways of “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens.” “+” and “–“indicate presence or absence in the genome. CBB, Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle; TCA, Tricarboxylic acid cycle/Krebs cycle.

Electron acceptorElectron donorCarbon fixationCarbon metabolism
ElementKey genesPresenceElementKey genesPresencePathwayKey genesPresencePathwayKey genesPresence
NitrogennapABCD+Ironcyc2+CBBrbcLS form I+Gycolysispfk
narGHIcyc1prk+gpml+
nirKS/norBC/nosZmtoABCarboxysome+TCA cyclecs / gltA+
SulfuraprABSulfursqr(+)sucAB+
soxXABYZ(CD)fccABfh
OxygenccoNOP+mdh+
qoxABCDGlyxoylate shuntglcB+
cydABXaceA+
Electron acceptorElectron donorCarbon fixationCarbon metabolism
ElementKey genesPresenceElementKey genesPresencePathwayKey genesPresencePathwayKey genesPresence
NitrogennapABCD+Ironcyc2+CBBrbcLS form I+Gycolysispfk
narGHIcyc1prk+gpml+
nirKS/norBC/nosZmtoABCarboxysome+TCA cyclecs / gltA+
SulfuraprABSulfursqr(+)sucAB+
soxXABYZ(CD)fccABfh
OxygenccoNOP+mdh+
qoxABCDGlyxoylate shuntglcB+
cydABXaceA+

Iron oxidation inCa. Siderophilus nitratireducens”

The presence of a monoheme c cytochrome cyc2 cluster 3, a primary iron oxidation gene, suggests that “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens can use Fe2+ as an electron donor. Other common Fe2+ oxidases, namely the diheme c cytochrome cyc1 and the multiheme c cytochromes MtoA and MtoB, were not annotated. Despite the close phylogenetic proximity to lithoautotrophic sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, the genes of sulfide dehydrogenases Sqr and FccAB and sulfite dehydrogenases SorAB and SoeABC were not identified.

In terms of potential catabolic electron acceptors, the genes for a periplasmic nitrate reductase (napABCD and its membrane ferrodoxins napGH) and a cbb3-type cytochrome c oxidase (ccoNOP) were annotated. However, genes encoding for other known denitrification reductases, namely membrane-bound nitrate reductase (narGHI) and nitrite, nitric oxide and nitrous oxide reductases, nirK/nirS, norBC, and nosZ respectively, were not found (Table 2, detailed version in Table S1). Additionally, alternative oxidases, such as the cytochrome bd ubiquinol oxidase (cydAB) or the aa3-type cytochrome c oxidase (coxABCD) were not identified. Also, genes of dissimilatory sulfate reduction (aprAB and dsrABC) and the sox complex, responsible for sulfate reduction could not be identified. These findings suggest that “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens relies exclusively on nitrate and oxygen as electron acceptors.

On the thermodynamic feasibility of nap-dependent nitrate-reducing iron-oxidation

Based on its genome, “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” is potentially an autotrophic organism that obtains energy by oxidizing Fe2+ to Fe3+ while reducing NO3 to NO2. Yet, as iron is a weak electron donor, the standard Gibbs free energy of the reaction is positive under standard biological conditions (pH 7). The process is therefore thermodynamically unfavorable:

However, the exceptionally low solubility constants of iron oxides, ranging from 10−34 to 10−42 [25] result in very low Fe3+ concentrations. Thereby, precipitation creates the conditions for a favorable thermodynamic driving force for the oxidation of Fe2+ to Fe3+ [26]. Under the operational conditions of this study (283 K, <1 μmolNO3·l−1, <0.2 μmolNO2·l−1 in the effluent), the reaction becomes thermodynamically favorable owing to the calculated Fe3+/Fe2+ ratio in the order of 10−16 (conservative value, see Section 4.2):

A Gibbs free energy of −66 kJ/e-mol is in principle enough to transport three to four protons over the cytoplasmic membrane, considering a value of 15 kJ·molH+−1 [27], and would yield at least one ATP. If other iron precipitation products are formed, the redox potential of Fe2+/Fe3+ increases further. Even at more conservative Fe3+/Fe2+ ratios and pH, due to non-equilibrium conditions and product gradients, the biological process remains favorable (Fig. 3).

Gibbs energy dissipated during nitrate-reducing iron oxidation as function of the ratio of substrates and products. As reference, lines represent the ratios at which the minimum energy required to generate pmf (−15 kJ·Mol−1, full lines) and ATP (−45 kJ·Mol−1, dashed lines) is generated at intracellular pH of 6 (green) or 7 (blue) ([27]). Star dots represent the actual ratios based on measured (NO2−/NO3−/Fe2+) and calculated (Fe3+) influent reactor concentrations. Note that NO2− was below detection limit (< 0.2 μmol·l−1), so that the actual reactor conditions were likely even more favorable, i.e. more on the left .
Figure 3

Gibbs energy dissipated during nitrate-reducing iron oxidation as function of the ratio of substrates and products. As reference, lines represent the ratios at which the minimum energy required to generate pmf (−15 kJ·Mol−1, full lines) and ATP (−45 kJ·Mol−1, dashed lines) is generated at intracellular pH of 6 (green) or 7 (blue) ([27]). Star dots represent the actual ratios based on measured (NO2/NO3/Fe2+) and calculated (Fe3+) influent reactor concentrations. Note that NO2 was below detection limit (< 0.2 μmol·l−1), so that the actual reactor conditions were likely even more favorable, i.e. more on the left .

Complete denitrification: a collaborative effort of iron-oxidizing autotrophs and organoheterotrophs

Iron oxidation genes were identified in five MAGs, namely MAG.13 (“Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens), MAG.29 (g_Rhizobacter) and MAG.26, MAG.34 and MAG.16 (f_Gallionellaceae, commonly associated with autotrophic iron oxidation). These MAGs also encoded for the central enzymes of the carbon dioxide fixation via the CBB cycle. While all 13 MAGs contained genes encoding for at least one denitrification enzyme (Table 2), none of them possessed a comprehensive gene set to fully reduce nitrate to dinitrogen gas. Dissimilatory nitrate reduction to nitrite, the first denitrification step, was present in nine MAGs, while the final step, nitrous oxide reduction to nitrogen gas, was only found in MAG.26 (g_Rhizobacter), MAG.18 (f_Anaeromyxobacteraceae) and MAG.10 (f_Chitinophagaceae). The five most abundant MAGs (>5%) alone accounted for up to 50% of the community and covered the full denitrification (Fig. 4). All putative iron oxidizers also possessed the genetic potential for aerobic respiration (i.e. they contained cbb3-type terminal oxidases). Interestingly, two distinct potential niches were identified. The autotrophic iron oxidizers, “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” and MAG.26 (f_Gallionelleceae), performed the initial denitrification reductions, while the lower-abundant organoheterotrophs complemented the reduction of (at least) NO to nitrous oxide possibly taking advantage of the autotrophically fixed carbon excreted by the iron oxidizers. Due to the absence of sufficient biodegradable organic matter in the influent, a portion of the biologically generated NO was likely reduced to N2O chemically with Fe2+ [28].

Genome-based conceptual model of substrates fluxes within the microbial community represented by the five most abundant MAGs. Putative autotrophic iron oxidizers perform the upstream part of denitrification, while flanking communities reduce the toxic intermediates to innocuous dinitrogen gas. The putative autotrophic metabolism was inferred based on the presence of ribulose-1,5-biphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO) and phosphofructokinase (pfk).
Figure 4

Genome-based conceptual model of substrates fluxes within the microbial community represented by the five most abundant MAGs. Putative autotrophic iron oxidizers perform the upstream part of denitrification, while flanking communities reduce the toxic intermediates to innocuous dinitrogen gas. The putative autotrophic metabolism was inferred based on the presence of ribulose-1,5-biphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO) and phosphofructokinase (pfk).

Discussion

We established a pilot-scale filter on nitrate-rich anoxic groundwater to elucidate the structure and metabolism of nitrate-reducing iron-oxidizing microbial communities under oligotrophic conditions mimicking natural groundwater. The enriched microbial community stoichiometrically removed iron and nitrate during more than 4 months, and was dominated by a genome belonging to a new Candidate order, named Siderophiliales. The genome of this new species, “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens,” encoded the genes for iron oxidation (cytochrome c cyc2) and, within the denitrification pathway, the periplasmic nitrate reductase (nap). The absence of other denitrification genes suggests a short catabolic path, which may offer a kinetic advantage in terms of higher iron oxidation rates [29] especially under nitrogen limiting conditions [30]. In contrast, the majority of NDFO genomes reported so far encode the membrane-bound nitrate reductase (nar) along with other downstream denitrification genes [11, 31–34]. Nar actively translocates protons, whereas nap conserves energy only indirectly by accepting electrons from the quinol pool on the periplasmic side of the membrane, effectively consuming cytoplasmic protons [35]. Recently, novel Zetaproteobacteria genomes possessing nap have been recovered from a complex community, yet they also possessed at least another energy conserving nitrogen oxide [5, 36]. The presence of a cbb3-type cytochrome c oxidase suggests that “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” may also be capable of oxygen respiration. This is consistent with the fact that all reported genomes of anaerobic iron-oxidizing bacteria contain oxygen reductases [31, 34, 37], including the well-studied KS [13] and AG [38] cultures. However, to the best of our knowledge, NDFO growth under (micro)aerophilic conditions has not been reported to date [11]. Although the sporadic detection of traces of oxygen (<3 μM) in our filter does not allow to fully exclude aerobic activity, and in the absence of cultured representatives to confirm it, we posit that nap-driven iron oxidation was the primary catabolic route of “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” under the in-situ restricted availability of alternative substrates. Furthermore, “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” was also identified as a putative autotroph, adding the additional challenge of energy and electrons needs for anabolic CO2 fixation to the growth on iron, a weak electron-donor at standard conditions [15]. Thermodynamic evaluations indicate that nap-dependent iron oxidation can sustain growth at realistic Fe3+/Fe2+ and NO3/NO2 concentrations ratios. To this end, the quasi-instantaneous precipitation of the biologically formed Fe3+ as iron oxides under circum-neutral pH plays a central role as thermodynamic driving force [39]. The specific mechanisms by which this thermodynamic potential is harnessed for carbon fixation remain to be fully elucidated.

The subsequent reduction of the produced nitrite resulted from the concerted activity of putative autotrophic iron-oxidizers and organoheterotrophs. Within the microbial community, the second most abundant genome, MAG.26 (f_Gallionellaceaea), featured the genetic potential for iron oxidation and most denitrification steps, with the exception of nitrous oxide reductase (nor). MAG.26 also possessed the cytochrome c oxidase cbb3-type ccoNOP for aerobic respiration. Interestingly, this genome contained genes for CO2 fixation, a trait mirrored in all other less abundant genomes with the ability to oxidize iron. This suggests that autotrophy may represent an essential trait for NDFOs in anoxic groundwaters where the dissolved organic carbon is largely non-biodegradable [40]. The three second most abundant genomes, MAG.18 (f_Anaeromyxobacteraceae), MAG.19 (g_Devosia) and MAG.10 (f_Chitinophagaceae) were found to lack the genes for iron oxidation and CO2 assimilation. Yet, these genomes encompassed the full denitrification pathway starting from nitrite. Besides the likely occurrence of chemical reduction of NO to N2O [41], we speculate that these heterotrophs complemented the NDFOs for at least the reduction of NO using autotrophically fixed organic carbon as substrate. A similar metabolic network was also recently observed in mesophilic NDFO communities [13]. Overall, the measured iron and nitrate consumption yield of 7.1 mol Fe2+: mol NO3 is consistent with the expected 5.6, i.e. considering the theoretical catabolism (eq. 1) and the recently estimated 12% of electrons used for growth [7], but higher than the experimentally observed range of 3.8–4.7 [9, 31, 42]. At first, we hypothesized nitrate ammonification to be the reason for the slight excess in iron oxidation, yet none of the putative iron-oxidizing genomes encoded for the common nrf nor for the newly reported octaheme complex [43]. Also, the oxygen sporadically detected in the influent was always below the quantification limit of 3 μM, a conservative concentration that alone would explain less than 15% of the total iron consumption via chemical oxidation. As no Fe3+ was detected in the reactor effluent, all iron necessarily accumulated inside the reactor either as Fe2+ or Fe3+ precipitates. X-ray diffraction and Mössbauer spectroscopy identified over 94% of the Fe in solids as amorphous ferrihydrite, an Fe3+ oxide, with <6% of the solids attributed to magnetite, an Fe2+–Fe3+ oxide typically formed under anaerobic conditions (Figure S4, Table S2 and SI 5). Consequently, the Fe2+ unaccounted for was likely continuously adsorbed onto the newly-formed Fe3+ oxides, a well-studied phenomenon [44], yet the extent to which this occurred was not investigated. In conclusion, pending experimental validation, we surmise that NDFO microorganisms may not only contribute to iron removal by direct oxidation but also by continuously providing newly-formed iron oxides for its adsorption.

Description of “Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens” gen. nov., sp. nov.

Siderophilus (Si.de.ro’phi.lus Gr. masc.n. sidêros iron; Gr. masc. adj. philos loving; N.L. masc. n. Siderophilus, loving iron).

ni.tra.ti.re.du’.cens (N.L. masc. n. nitras (gen. nitratis), nitrate; L. pres. part. reducens, converting to a different state; N.L. part. adj. nitratireducens, reducing nitrate).

Autotrophic nitrate-reducing iron-oxidizing bacterium isolated from a filtration unit fed with anaerobic groundwater with iron(II) and nitrate. Harbors also have the genetic potential to aerobically oxidize iron.

Materials and methods

Groundwater and pilot-scale filter characteristics

An iron reducing microbial community was enriched anoxically on the granular activated carbon of a 10-L pilot-scale filter in Emmen (the Netherlands) (Figs S1 and S2 and Table S1). The media was devoid of any previously formed biofilm. The anoxic, nitrate-rich groundwater (−75.2 ± 28.4 mV) featured constant Fe2+ and NO3 concentrations, 236 ± 4 μM and 8.1 ± 2.1 μM, respectively (Table 3). Oxygen was consistently below quantification limit (3 μM). The groundwater pH and temperature were 6.7 ± 0.2 and 10.5 ± 0.1°C, respectively. The filter was operated at a filtration flowrate of 3.8 m·h−1 (29.6 L·h−1) during 120 days. After 75 days of steady-state operation, the influent nitrate concentration was manually increased in four steps up to 83.8 ± 0.6 μM, when the system changed from nitrate (NO3 < 1 μM) to iron limiting conditions (Fe2+ < 4 μM).

Table 3

Influent and effluent water characteristics corresponding to average and standard deviation of daily measurements of Days 21–77, during the nitrate-limited steady-state. Fe3+ was calculated as described in the following section.

ParameterUnitsValueValue
InfluentEffluent
pH6.9 ± 0.46.7 ± 0.1
T°C10.5 ± 0.110.9 ± 0.6
ORPmV−64 ± 17−58 ± 18
O2μmol·L−1<3a<3a
NH4+μmol·L−111 ± 1.011 ± 8.1
NO2μmol·L−1<0.2a<0.2a
NO3μmol·L−18.1 ± 2.1<1
Fe2+μmol·L−1236 ± 4178 ± 5
Fe3+μmol·L−12·10−12
DOCmg·L−13.1 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.2
ParameterUnitsValueValue
InfluentEffluent
pH6.9 ± 0.46.7 ± 0.1
T°C10.5 ± 0.110.9 ± 0.6
ORPmV−64 ± 17−58 ± 18
O2μmol·L−1<3a<3a
NH4+μmol·L−111 ± 1.011 ± 8.1
NO2μmol·L−1<0.2a<0.2a
NO3μmol·L−18.1 ± 2.1<1
Fe2+μmol·L−1236 ± 4178 ± 5
Fe3+μmol·L−12·10−12
DOCmg·L−13.1 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.2
a

Below detection limit

Table 3

Influent and effluent water characteristics corresponding to average and standard deviation of daily measurements of Days 21–77, during the nitrate-limited steady-state. Fe3+ was calculated as described in the following section.

ParameterUnitsValueValue
InfluentEffluent
pH6.9 ± 0.46.7 ± 0.1
T°C10.5 ± 0.110.9 ± 0.6
ORPmV−64 ± 17−58 ± 18
O2μmol·L−1<3a<3a
NH4+μmol·L−111 ± 1.011 ± 8.1
NO2μmol·L−1<0.2a<0.2a
NO3μmol·L−18.1 ± 2.1<1
Fe2+μmol·L−1236 ± 4178 ± 5
Fe3+μmol·L−12·10−12
DOCmg·L−13.1 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.2
ParameterUnitsValueValue
InfluentEffluent
pH6.9 ± 0.46.7 ± 0.1
T°C10.5 ± 0.110.9 ± 0.6
ORPmV−64 ± 17−58 ± 18
O2μmol·L−1<3a<3a
NH4+μmol·L−111 ± 1.011 ± 8.1
NO2μmol·L−1<0.2a<0.2a
NO3μmol·L−18.1 ± 2.1<1
Fe2+μmol·L−1236 ± 4178 ± 5
Fe3+μmol·L−12·10−12
DOCmg·L−13.1 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.2
a

Below detection limit

Dissolved Fe3+ estimation

At pH 7, Fe3+ has a markedly low solubility and precipitates as iron oxyhydroxide (Fe(OH)3). Thermodynamically, this phase transition favors the oxidation of Fe2+ to Fe3+, and the resulting low Fe3+ concentration is the primary driving force of equation 1 [45]. In our filter, the dissolved concentration of the Fe3+, resulting from Fe2+ oxidation, was always below detection limit (0.01 mg·l−1). To discuss the thermodynamic feasibility of the NDFO process, we estimated the steady-state [Fe3+]/[Fe2+] ratio following the method proposed by Gorski et al. [39], which assumes thermodynamic equilibrium between [Fe2+] – [Fe3+] – [FeOx] phases based on the fact that the hydroxylation of dissolved Fe3+ is quasi-instantaneous at pH > 3 [46]. Consequently, the following equation can be used to determine the Fe3+ concentration as function of pH and the solid solubility constant.

The most abundant iron oxide in the sand filter was amorphous ferrihydrite (SI 4 and 5), with a Ksp of 10−39 [46]. Therefore:

Analytic procedures

Samples for ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate quantification were immediately filtered through a 0.2 μm nanopore filter and measured within 12 h using photometric analysis (Gallery Discrete Analyzer, Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Samples for dissolved iron were filtered through a 0.2 μm nanopore filter, acidified to pH < 2 with H2SO4, and quantified by ICP-MS (Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany). Temperature, pH, oxidation–reduction potential (ORP), and dissolved oxygen concentration (DO) were monitored daily using a HI9829-01042 multiparameter analyzer (Hanna Instruments, Smithfield, RI, USA) in the raw water, after nitrate dosage and in the effluent.

Biomass sampling, DNA extraction and quality control

Immediately after the end of the experiment, the filter was emptied and the medium grains were completely mixed. A small volume of grains was used for DNA extraction. Nucleic acid extraction was carried out using DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) following manufacturer instructions. To improve DNA recovery and avoid the interference of carbon with the extraction, 25 μL of 20 g·l−1 autoclaved (20 min, 121°C, 2 bar) skimmed milk solution (Sigma Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) were added to the extraction tube. After extraction, DNA was concentrated to 7.68 ng DNA·μl−1 using Microcon centrifugal filter units YM-100 (MilliporeSigma, Burlington, MA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA was quantified with the Qubit 4 Fluorometer and Qubit dsDNA HS assay kit (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA purity was determined using a NanoDrop One Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

Library preparation, sequencing, and reads processing

Long-read and short-read DNA sequencing were carried out independently. Long-read library preparation was carried out using the ligation sequencing kit SQK-LSK 109 (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Oxford, UK). R.9.4.1 flowcells on a GridION were used for sequencing. Raw data were basecalled in super-accurate mode using Guppy v.5.0.16 (https://nanoporetech.com). Raw reads were quality-filtered and trimmed using Filtlong (https://github.com/rrwick/Filtlong) to remove reads below 4000 kb and mean quality score below 80. Adapters were removed using Porechop v.0.2.3 (https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop).

Short-read library preparation was performed using the Nextera XT kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The libraries were pooled, denatured, and sequenced with Illumina MiSeq (San Diego, CA, USA). Paired end sequencing of 2 x 300 base pairs was performed using the MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (San Diego, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Raw sequencing data were quality-filtered and trimmed using Trimmomatic v0.39 (HEADCROP:16 LEADING:3 TRAILING:5 SLIDINGWINDOW:4:10 CROP:240 MINLEN:35) [47]. Sequencing data quality was analyzed using FastQC v0.11.7 before and after trimming [48].

Reads assembly and binning

Reads assembly and binning were done as in [49] with minor modifications. Long-reads were assembled using Flye v. 2.9-b1768 [50] with the “–meta” setting enabled and the “–nano-hq” option. Polishing was carried out with Minimap2 v.2.17 [51], Racon v. 1.3.3 [52], Medaka v.1.4.4 (two rounds) (https://github.com/nanoporetech/medaka). At the end, short-reads were incorporated in a final round of polishing with Racon. Both long- and short-raw reads were independently mapped back to the assembled contigs using BWA-MEM2 [53]. SAMtools v1.14 was used to determine contig coverage and for indexing with default settings [54] .

Automated binning was carried out with the long-reads assembly (polished with short-reads) using MetaBAT2 v. 2.12.1 [55] with “-s 500000,” MaxBin2 v. 2.2.7 [56], and Vamb v. 3.0.2 [57] with “-o C–minfasta 500000.” Additionally, contig coverage from the short-reads assembly was provided as input to the three binners to improve binning. Output integration and refinement was done in DAS Tool v. 1.1.2 [58] . CoverM v. 0.6.1 (https://github.com/wwood/CoverM) was applied to calculate the bin coverage (using the “-m mean” setting) and the relative abundance (“-m relative_abundance”). Additional manual bin polishing was done in R using mmgenome (https://github.com/MadsAlbertsen/mmgenome).

Assembly processing and gene annotation

The completeness and contamination of the genome bins were estimated using CheckM v. 1.1.2 [59]. The bins were classified using GDTB-Tk v. 1.5.0 [60] 202 database. Barrnap v 0.9 (https://github.com/tseemann/barrnap) and structRNAfinder [61] were used to predict 23S, 16S, and 5S ribosomal RNA sequences, and transfer RNA sequences were determined using tRNAscan-SE v.20 [62] with default search mode. Bins were classified using the Minimum Information about a Metagenome-Assembled Genome (MIMAG) standards [18]: high-quality bins were >90% complete and <5% contaminated, and contained full-length 23S, 16S, and 5S ribosomal RNA genes and ≥18 transfer RNA genes. Bins with completeness >50% and contamination <10% were classified as medium-quality, and bins with completeness <50% and <10% contamination as low-quality bins. The remaining ones were considered contamination. 68% of the filtered reads rendered high- and medium-quality bins, 11% low-quality bins and 21.1% were unbinned.

The ORFs of the 10 resulting high-quality and 3 medium-quality bins with relative abundance >0.5% were predicted using Prodigal v2.6.3 [63] and functionally annotated with GhostKoala v2.2 [20] (Kyota Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; accessed March 2022). FeGenie [19] was used to improve the annotation of the iron metabolism using the metagenomics (“-meta”) settings. To refine the annotation for MAG.13 (Candidatus Siderophilus nitratireducens), the genome was uploaded to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline v6.1 [64]. Additionally, manual annotation of genes potentially relevant but not automatically annotated was done by aligning a set of manually selected sequences from UniProtKB against the translated ORFs from MAG.13 with local blastp v2.13 [65]. After annotation, all the predicted genes of interest (manually and automatically annotated) were translated and aligned against the Non-redundant protein sequences (nr) database from NCBI using blastp (accessed June 2022) and accepted only if the coverage was >70% [19] and the identity >35% [66].

RStudio v1.4.1106 was used for data analysis and visualization.

Phylogenetic tree construction

Genome-based phylogenetic reconstruction was done by using 120 bacterial single copy conservative marker genes, as described previously [60]. The trees were built using the IQ-TREE 2 [23] with fast model selection via ModelFinder [67] and ultrafast approximation for phylogenetic bootstrap [68], as well as approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches [24]. Whole genome comparison was conducted by using two different methods: Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI), using JSpeciesWS web server and DNA–DNA Hybridization (DDH) by the Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator 2.1 online tool (https://ggdc.dsmz.de/ggdc.php) [69].

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dimitry Sorokin (TU Delft and Russian Academy of Sciences) for the thorough discussions and invaluable insights; Martin Pabst and Dita Heikens (TU Delft) for the yet-unpublished proteomic data; Mantas Sereika, Thomas Nielsen, and Mads Albertsen (Aalborg University) for their help with Nanopore Sequencing and genome assembly and binning during the hands-on Nanopore course; Arjan I. Dugulan (Reactor Institute Delft) for the Mossbauer Analysis; and the anonymous Reviewer #2 for the insightful and constructive comments that significantly improved the manuscript.

Author contributions

Francesc Corbera-Rubio, Jantinus Bruins, Mark C. M. van Loosdrecht, Doris van Halem, and Michele Laureni (conceived the study), Jantinus Bruins and Simon F. Dost (designed the filter and performed the on-site experiments), Francesc Corbera-Rubio (run the metagenomics analysis), and Alexander Y. Merkel (the phylogenetic classification). Francesc Corbera-Rubio and Gerben R. Stouten conducted the thermodynamics calculations. Simon Müller performed the solid characterization. Francesc Corbera-Rubio, Gerben R. Stouten, Mark C. M. van Loosdrecht, Doris van Halem, and Michele Laureni performed data analysis and/or helped interpret the results. Francesc Corbera-Rubio wrote the manuscript, with contributions from Gerben R. Stouten, Mark C. M. van Loosdrecht, Doris van Halem, and Michele Laureni. All co-authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Funding

This work was financed by the NWO partnership program “Dunea–Vitens: Sand Filtration” (project 17830) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and the drinking water companies Vitens NV and Dunea Duin & Water. M.L. was supported by NWO (VI.Veni.192.252).

Data availability

Raw reads and MAGs have been deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) website (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/) under BioProject PRJNA834785. The BioSample accession numbers for the raw reads and the five most abundant MAGs are SAMN28600298, SAMN28058410 (“Ca. Siderophilus nitratireducens”), SAMN36381704 (f_Gallionelaceae), SAMN36381891 (f_Anaeromyxobacteraceae), SAMN36382736( g_Devosia), SAMN36401011 (f_Chitinophagaceae).

References

1.

Matassa
S
,
Batstone
DJ
,
Hülsen
T
 et al.  
Can direct conversion of used nitrogen to new feed and protein help feed the world?
 
Environ Sci Technol
 
2015
;
49
:
5247
54
. https://doi.org/10.1021/es505432w.

2.

Giordano
M
.
Global groundwater? Issues and solutions
.
Annu Rev Environ Resour
 
2009
;
34
:
153
78
.
Available from
: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.environ.030308.100251.

3.

Ward
MH
,
Jones
RR
,
Brender
JD
 et al.  
Drinking water nitrate and human health: an updated review
.
Int J Environ Res Public Health
 
2018
;
15
:1557–88. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071557.

4.

WHO
.
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 4th ed. Resuscitation
.
Geneva
:
World Health Organisation
,
2010
, 26–8.

5.

McAllister
SM
,
Vandzura
R
,
Keffer
JL
 et al.  
Aerobic and anaerobic iron oxidizers together drive denitrification and carbon cycling at marine iron-rich hydrothermal vents
.
ISME J
 
2021
;
15
:
1271
86
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-00849-y. https://www-nature-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/articles/s41396-020-00849-y.

6.

Schaedler
F
,
Lockwood
C
,
Lueder
U
 et al.  
Microbially mediated coupling of Fe and N cycles by nitrate-reducing Fe(II)-oxidizing bacteria in littoral freshwater sediments
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
 
2018
;
84
:
1
14
. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02013-17.

7.

Huang
J
,
Mellage
A
,
Garcia
JP
 et al.  
Metabolic performance and fate of electrons during nitrate-reducing Fe(II) oxidation by the autotrophic enrichment culture KS grown at different initial Fe/N ratios
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
 
2023
;
89
:
e0019623
. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00196-23.

8.

Chen
D
,
Cheng
K
,
Liu
T
 et al.  
Novel insight into microbially mediated nitrate-reducing Fe(II) oxidation by Acidovorax sp. strain BoFeN1 using dual N-O isotope fractionation
.
Environ Sci Technol
 
2023
;
57
:
12546
55
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c02329. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37535944/.

9.

Straub
KL
,
Benz
M
,
Schink
B
 et al.  
Anaerobic, nitrate-dependent microbial oxidation of ferrous iron
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
 
1996
;
62
:
1458
60
. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.62.4.1458-1460.1996.

10.

Bryce
C
,
Blackwell
N
,
Schmidt
C
 et al.  
Microbial anaerobic Fe(II) oxidation – ecology,, mechanisms and environmental implications
.
Environ Microbiol
 
2018
;
20
:
3462
83
.
Available from
: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1462-2920.14328.

11.

Huang
YM
,
Jakus
N
,
Straub
D
 et al.  
Candidatus ferrigenium straubiae’ sp. nov., ‘Candidatus ferrigenium bremense’ sp. nov., ‘Candidatus ferrigenium altingense’ sp. nov., are autotrophic Fe(II)-oxidizing bacteria of the family Gallionellaceae
.
Syst Appl Microbiol
 
2022
;
45
:126306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2022.126306.

12.

Price
A
,
Macey
MC
,
Miot
J
 et al.  
Draft genome sequences of the nitrate-dependent iron-oxidizing Proteobacteria Acidovorax sp. strain BoFeN1 and Paracoccus pantotrophus strain KS1
.
Microbiol Resour Announc
 
2018
;
7
:
1
2
. https://doi.org/10.1128/MRA.01050-18.

13.

Huang
Y
,
Straub
D
,
Blackwell
N
 et al.  
Meta-omics reveal Gallionellaceae and Rhodanobacter species as interdependent key players for Fe(II) oxidation and nitrate reduction in the autotrophic enrichment culture KS
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
 
2021
;
87
:
e0049621
. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00496-21.

14.

Weber
KA
,
Achenbach
LA
,
Coates
JD
.
Microorganisms pumping iron: anaerobic microbial iron oxidation and reduction
.
Nat Rev Microbiol
 
2006
;
4
:
752
64
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1490. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscifacpub.

15.

Hedrich
S
,
Schlömann
M
,
Barrie
Johnson D
.
The Iron-Oxidizing Proteobacteria [Internet]
. Vol.
157
,
Great Britain: Microbiology. Microbiology Society
;
2011
.
1551
64
.
Available from:
 https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.045344-0.

16.

Kleerebezem
R
,
Van Loosdrecht
MCM
.
Thermodynamic and kinetic characterization using process dynamics: acidophilic ferrous iron oxidation by Leptospirillum ferrooxidans
.
Biotechnol Bioeng
 
2008
;
100
:
49
60
. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21745.

17.

Agudelo-Vera
C
,
Avvedimento
S
,
Boxall
J
 et al.  
Drinking water temperature around the globe: understanding, policies, challenges and opportunities
.
Water (Switzerland)
 
2020
;
12
:1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041049.

18.

Bowers
RM
,
Kyrpides
NC
 et al.  
Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea
.
Nat Biotechnol
 
2017
;
35
:
725
31
. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3893.

19.

Garber
AI
,
Nealson
KH
,
Okamoto
A
 et al.  
FeGenie: a comprehensive tool for the identification of iron genes and iron gene neighborhoods in genome and metagenome assemblies
.
Front Microbiol
 
2020
;
11
:
37
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00037. https://github.com/Arkadiy-Garber/FeGenie.

20.

Kanehisa
M
,
Sato
Y
,
Morishima
K
.
BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences
.
J Mol Biol
 
2016
;
428
:
726
31
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2015.11.006.

21.

Pinto
AJ
,
Marcus
DN
,
Ijaz
UZ
 et al.  
Metagenomic evidence for the presence of comammoxnitrospira-like bacteria in a drinking water system
.
mSphere
 
2016
;
1
:1–15.

22.

Parks
DH
,
Chuvochina
M
,
Waite
DW
 et al.  
A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life
.
Nat Biotechnol
 
2018
;
36
:
996
1004
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4229. https://www-nature-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/articles/nbt.4229.

23.

Minh
BQ
,
Schmidt
HA
,
Chernomor
O
 et al.  
IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era
.
Mol Biol Evol
 
2020
;
37
:
1530
4
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa015. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/32011700/.

24.

Anisimova
M
,
Gascuel
O
.
Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: a fast, accurate, and powerful alternative
.
Syst Biol
 
2006
;
55
:
539
52
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150600755453. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/16785212/.

25.

Schwertmann
U
,
Cornell
RM
,
Rao
CNR
, et al.  
The Iron Oxides
. 2nd ed, Synthesis. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2003, 694.

26.

Lees
H
,
Kwok
SC
,
Suzuki
I
.
The thermodynamics of iron oxidation by the ferrobacilli
.
Can J Microbiol
 
1968
;
12
:
6
8
.

27.

Müller
V
,
Hess
V
. The minimum biological energy quantum. Vol.
8
,
Frontiers in Microbiology
.
Switzerland: Frontiers Media S.A.
;
2017
. p. 2019.

28.

Hayhurst
AN
,
Lawrence
AD
.
The reduction of the nitrogen oxides NO and N2O to molecular nitrogen in the presence of iron, its oxides, and carbon monoxide in a hot fluidized bed
.
Combust Flame
 
1997
;
110
:
351
65
. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(97)00085-0.

29.

Costa
E
,
Pérez
J
,
Kreft
JU
.
Why is metabolic labour divided in nitrification?
 
Trends Microbiol
 
2006
;
14
:
213
9
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2006.03.006.

30.

Pessi
IS
,
Viitamäki
S
,
Virkkala
AM
 et al.  
In-depth characterization of denitrifier communities across different soil ecosystems in the tundra
.
Environ Microbiomes
 
2022
;
17
:
30
17
. Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-022-00424-2.

31.

Huang
Y-M
,
Straub
D
,
Kappler
A
 et al.  
A novel enrichment culture highlights core features of microbial networks contributing to autotrophic Fe(II) oxidation coupled to nitrate reduction
.
Microb Physiol
 
2021
;
31
:
280
95
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1159/000517083. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/517083.

32.

Cheng
B
,
Wang
Y
,
Hua
Y
 et al.  
The performance of nitrate-reducing Fe(II) oxidation processes under variable initial Fe/N ratios: the fate of nitrogen and iron species
.
Front Environ Sci Eng
 
2021
;
15
:73
. Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-020-1366-2.

33.

Jamieson
J
,
Prommer
H
,
Kaksonen
AH
 et al.  
Identifying and quantifying the intermediate processes during nitrate-dependent iron(II)
.
Oxidation
 
2018
;
52
:
5771
81
. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01122. https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines.

34.

He
S
,
Tominski
C
,
Kappler
A
 et al.  
Metagenomic analyses of the autotrophic Fe(II)-oxidizing, nitrate-reducing enrichment culture KS
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
 
2016
;
82
:
2656
68
. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03493-15.

35.

Simon
J
,
van Spanning
RJM
,
Richardson
DJ
.
The organisation of proton motive and non-proton motive redox loops in prokaryotic respiratory systems
.
Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg
 
2008
;
1777
:
1480
90
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2008.09.008.

36.

Chen
J
,
Strous
M
.
Denitrification and aerobic respiration, hybrid electron transport chains and co-evolution
.
Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg
 
2013
;
1827
:
136
44
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2012.10.002.

37.

Hu
M
,
Chen
P
,
Sun
W
 et al.  
A novel organotrophic nitrate-reducing Fe(II)-oxidizing bacterium isolated from paddy soil and draft genome sequencing indicate its metabolic versatility
.
RSC Adv
 
2017
;
7
:
56611
20
. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA09328D.

38.

Jakus
N
,
Blackwell
N
,
Straub
D
 et al.  
Presence of Fe(II) and nitrate shapes aquifer-originating communities leading to an autotrophic enrichment dominated by an Fe(II)-oxidizing Gallionellaceae sp
.
FEMS Microbiol Ecol
 
2021
;
97
:
1
14
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiab145. https://academic-oup-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/femsec/article/97/11/fiab145/6415198.

39.

Gorski
CA
,
Edwards
R
,
Sander
M
 et al.  
Thermodynamic characterization of iron oxide-aqueous Fe2+ redox couples
.
Environ Sci Technol
 
2016
;
50
:
8538
47
. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02661.

40.

Caltran
I
,
Rietveld
LC
,
Shorney-Darby
HL
 et al.  
Separating NOM from salts in ion exchange brine with ceramic nanofiltration
.
Water Res
 
2020
;
179
:
115894
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115894.

41.

Van Cleemput
O
.
Subsoils: chemo- and biological denitrification, N2O and N2 emissions
.
Nutr Cycl Agroecosystems
 
1998
;
52
:
187
94
.
Available from
: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009728125678.

42.

Tominski
C
,
Heyer
H
,
Lösekann-Behrens
T
 et al.  
Growth and population dynamics of the anaerobic Fe(II)-oxidizing and nitrate-reducing enrichment culture KS
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
 
2018
;
84
:2173–90.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02173-17. http://aem.asm.org/.

43.

Sorokin
DY
,
Tikhonova
TV
,
Koch
H
 et al.  
Trichlorobacter ammonificans, a dedicated acetate-dependent ammonifier with a novel module for dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonia
.
ISME J
 
2023
;
17
:
1
10
.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01473-2.

44.

Fredrickson
JK
,
Zachara
JM
,
Kennedy
DW
 et al.  
Biogenic iron mineralization accompanying the dissimilatory reduction of hydrous ferric oxide by a groundwater bacterium
.
Geochim Cosmochim Acta
 
1998
;
62
:
3239
57
. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00243-9.

45.

Jolivet
JP
,
Chanéac
C
,
Tronc
E
.
Iron oxide chemistry. From molecular clusters to extended solid networks
.
Chem Commun
 
2004
;
4
:
477
83
. https://doi.org/10.1039/B304532N.

46.

Vlek
PLG
,
Blom
TJM
,
Beek
J
 et al.  
Determination of the solubility product of various iron hydroxides and Jarosite by the chelation method
.
Soil Sci Soc Am J
 
1974
;
38
:
429
32
. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1974.03615995003800030018x.

47.

Bolger
AM
,
Lohse
M
,
Usadel
B
.
Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data
.
Bioinformatics
 
2014
;
30
:
2114
20
.
Available from
: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24695404/.

48.

Andrews
S.
 
FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data
 
[Online] [Internet]
.
2010
.
Available from:
 http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/.

49.

Sereika
M
,
Kirkegaard
RH
,
Karst
SM
 et al.  
Oxford nanopore R10.4 long-read sequencing enables the generation of near-finished bacterial genomes from pure cultures and metagenomes without short-read or reference polishing
.
Nat Methods
 
2022
;
19
:
823
6
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01539-7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-022-01539-7.

50.

Lin
Y
,
Yuan
J
,
Kolmogorov
M
 et al.  
Assembly of long error-prone reads using de Bruijn graphs
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
 
2016
;
113
:
E8396
405
. Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604560113.

51.

Li
H
.
Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences
.
Bioinformatics
 
2018
;
34
:
3094
100
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191. https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/bioinformatics/article/34/18/3094/4994778.

52.

Vaser
R
,
Sović
I
,
Nagarajan
N
 et al.  
Fast and accurate de novo genome assembly from long uncorrected reads
.
Genome Res
 
2017
;
27
:
737
46
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.214270.116. https://genome.cshlp.org/content/27/5/737.full.

53.

Vasimuddin
M
,
Misra
S
,
Li
H
 et al.  Efficient architecture-aware acceleration of BWA-MEM for multicore systems. In:
Proceedings - 2019 IEEE 33rd International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, IPDPS 2019
, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Washington, USA, 2019,
314
24
.

54.

Li
H
,
Handsaker
B
,
Wysoker
A
 et al.  
The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools
.
Bioinformatics
 
2009
;
25
:
2078
9
.
Available from
: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19505943/.

55.

Kang
DD
,
Li
F
,
Kirton
E
,
Thomas
A
,
Egan
R
,
An
H
,
Wang
Z
 
MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies
.
PeerJ [Internet]
 
2019
;
7
:e7359.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7359.

56.

Wu
YW
,
Simmons
BA
,
Singer
SW
.
MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets
.
Bioinformatics
 
2016
;
32
:
605
7
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv638. www.jbei.org.

57.

Nissen
JN
,
Johansen
J
,
Allesøe
RL
 et al.  
Improved metagenome binning and assembly using deep variational autoencoders
.
Nat Biotechnol
 
2021
;
39
:
555
60
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-00777-4.

58.

CM
KS
,
Probst
AJ
,
Sharrar
A
 et al.  
Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy
.
Nat Microbiol
 
2018
;
3
:
836
43
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0171-1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-018-0171-1.

59.

Parks
DH
,
Imelfort
M
,
Skennerton
CT
 et al.  
CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes
.
Genome Res
 
2015
;
25
:
1043
55
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.186072.114. https://genome-cshlp-org.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/content/25/7/1043.full.

60.

Parks
DH
,
Chuvochina
M
,
Chaumeil
P-A
 et al.  
A complete domain-to-species taxonomy for bacteria and archaea
.
Nat Biotechnol
 
2020
;
38
:
1079
86
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0501-8.

61.

Arias-Carrasco
R
,
Vásquez-Morán
Y
,
Nakaya
HI
 et al.  
StructRNAfinder: an automated pipeline and web server for RNA families prediction
.
BMC Bioinformatics
 
2018
;
19
:
1
7
.
Available from
: https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-018-2052-2.

62.

Chan
PP
,
Lin
BY
,
Mak
AJ
,
Lowe
TM
.
tRNAscan-SE 2.0: improved detection and functional classification of transfer RNA genes
.
Nucleic Acids Res
 
2021
;
49
(16)
:
9077
96
.
Available from:
 https://academic-oup-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/nar/article/49/16/9077/6355886. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab688.

63.

Hyatt
D
,
Chen
GL
,
LoCascio
PF
 et al.  
Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification
.
BMC Bioinformatics
 
2010
;
11
:
1
11
.
Available from
: https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-11-119.

64.

Tatusova
T
,
Dicuccio
M
,
Badretdin
A
 et al.  
NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline
.
Nucleic Acids Res
 
2016
;
44
:
6614
24
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw569. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/27342282/.

65.

Altschul
SF
,
Madden
TL
,
Schäffer
AA
 et al.  
Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs
.
Nucleic Acids Res
 
1997
;
25
:
3389
402
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.17.3389. https://academic-oup-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/nar/article/25/17/3389/1061651.

66.

Rost
B
.
Twilight zone of protein sequence alignments
.
Protein Eng Des Sel
 
1999
;
12
:
85
94
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/12.2.85. https://academic-oup-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/peds/article/12/2/85/1550637.

67.

Kalyaanamoorthy
S
,
Minh
BQ
,
Wong
TKF
 et al.  
ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates
.
Nat Methods [Internet]
 
2017
;
14
:
587
9
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4285. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/28481363/.

68.

Thi Hoang
D
,
Chernomor
O
,
von Haeseler
A
 et al.  
UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation
.
Mol Biol Evol
 
2017
;
35
:
518
22
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx281. http://www.iqtree.org.

69.

Richter
M
,
Rosselló-Móra
R
,
Oliver Glöckner
F
 et al.  
JSpeciesWS: a web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison
.
Bioinformatics
 
2016
;
32
:
929
31
.
Available from
: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv681. http://jspecies.ribohost.com/.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Supplementary data