100 for 100: Harnessing the Power of Microorganisms for Environmental Sustainability

Item 52/100: Methane-Consuming Bacteria
ATCC’s Green Culture Team
ATCC® TSD-186™ – Methylicorpusculum oleiharenae Saidi-Mehrabad et al.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that accelerates climate change. These emissions come from a variety of sources such as wetlands, landfills, fossil fuel operations, and agriculture. To curb climate change, we must cut current fossil fuel methane emission levels by 75% by 2030.¹ Microorganisms may provide a solution.

Pioneer bacterial communities are present in various global ecosystems, and the population dynamics of these communities influence the carbon geochemical cycle, thereby potentially playing a significant role in climate change.² These communities consist of methanogenic bacteria, which degrade organic matter and produce methane, and methanotrophic bacteria, which utilize methane. Methanotrophic bacteria like Methylicorpusculum oleiharenae (ATCC® TSD-186™) consume methane, and recent research shows that some methanotrophs have industrial potential to remove atmospheric methane gas.³ These methanotrophic bacteria can absorb methane at ambient temperatures, with some species able to grow quickly at a concentration of 500 ppm methane.⁴

These methane-consuming bacteria have potential applications in methane-eliminating technology and could be deployed at methane emissions sites, like landfills or oil wells, to offset emissions and potentially slow climate change.^5,6 Furthermore, for these organisms to use of methane for metabolic processes, they require the enzyme methane monooxygenase; recent research has highlighted how this enzyme may be engineered and used to develop lab-made catalysts to break down methane.⁷ Genetic engineering using plasmid systems in one methanotroph could potentially be used to genetically alter other methanotrophic species to better oxidize methane. These bacteria and their methane metabolism could be utilized in a variety of applications to help mitigate climate change and reduce methane emissions to help create a better future for all.

Item 53/100: Magnetic Bacteria
Victoria Knight-Connoni, PhD, Principal Scientist Content & Accessioning
ATCC® 700264™ – Magnetospirillum magneticum

In the late 1950s Salvatore Bellini, an Italian physician and microbiologist, was examining freshwater samples he collected near Pavia, Italy, when he noticed that some of the bacteria always swam in a northward direction.⁸ He hypothesized that this behavior was due to an internal "magnetic compass" within the cells. Bellini’s findings remained largely unrecognized until 1975 when Richard Blakemore independently rediscovered these bacteria in a pond in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.⁹ He subsequently described the bacteria and coined the term magnetotaxis based upon their ability to orient and navigate along magnetic field lines.¹⁰ Magnetotactic bacteria contain magnetosomes which are intracellular, membrane-bound organelles that contain magnetic crystals which allow them to orient to the poles. Further research revealed that magnetoreception is not exclusive to microscopic organisms but can also be found in various species, including birds, arthropods, and mollusks.¹¹

Among the well-studied strains is Magnetospirillum magneticum strain AMB-1 (ATCC® 700264™).¹² This strain, isolated from a pond in Tokyo, Japan, is notable for its well-characterized genome and its ability to form magnetite inclusions under microaerophilic conditions, making it a model organism for studying magnetotaxis and biomineralization. ATCC also has four type strains of magnetotactic bacteria. These organisms highlight the diverse and biologically creative organisms that can be found in the ATCC catalog.

Item 54/100: Plastic Hungry Bacteria to Clean Our Planet
Meghan Sikes, MS, Senior Biologist
ATCC® 12633™ – Pseudomonas putida (Trevisan) Migula

Bioremediation is a promising technology that utilizes microorganisms to detoxify or degrade environmental pollution from water and soil. The microbes capable of this process can biologically degrade harmful inorganic and organic waste products into less harmful intermediates using their own bacterial enzymes.^13,14 Environmental micropollutants like pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, pesticides, and microplastics pose significant health risks to all living organisms, and it is important to try and remove these harmful substances from the environment.¹⁵

Pseudomonas putida (ATCC® 12633™), discovered in 1889 by Trevisan, is a non-pathogenic bacterium known for its bioremediation potential. P. putida has been found to degrade pollutants such as aromatic compounds naphthalene and phenanthrene, which are some of the most widespread pollutants in our environment. The catabolic breakdown of naphthalene by P. putida is well studied and involves the enzymatic breakdown of the harmful pollutant into salicylate, which is a natural compound found in plants.^16,17 Although P. putida is well known for breaking down aromatic compounds, research has shown that P. putida has bioremediation potential against other pollutants.  

For example, a newly discovered strain of P. putida showed the capability to biodegrade polyethylene terephthalate,¹⁸ the most used plastic used for food and drink containers. Another strain of P. putida can be utilized in a two-step process to break down Styrofoam (polystyrene) into a biodegradable thermoplastic.¹⁹ Looking ahead, genome streamlining of P. putida to create favorable bioremediation strains could be a valuable research avenue to help reduce environmental pollutants of all kinds.

Item 55/100: Tasty and Safe: New Detection Method for Foodborne Pathogen
Katherine Morin, MS, Senior Biologist
ATCC® 14028™ – Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica (ex Kauffmann and Edwards) Le Minor and Popoff serovar Typhimurium

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium) is a gram-negative bacterium with rod morphology.²⁰ This species is responsible for non-typhoidal Salmonella infections and is known for its role in severe foodborne illness, accounting for ~1.35 million cases in the United States per year. It is the second leading cause of foodborne illness in the United States and the leading cause of hospitalizations and death from food poisoning.²¹

Current methods of detecting S. Typhimurium in food products are labor-intensive, expensive, and time-consuming.  These methods include enrichment, separation, purification, microscopic examination, PCR, mass spectrometry, and biochemical testing, which can take up to 72 hours and pose a risk for human error due to the number and complexity of steps.¹⁵ In past years, the use of fluorescence-based detection methods has been deemed as a promising approach to pathogenic bacteria detection due to its low cost and high sensitivity.

Many groups have utilized S. Typhimurium strain CDC 6516-60 (ATCC® 14028™) to improve methods for detecting foodborne pathogens. One assay developed by Wu et al. was inspired by a firefly lantern and uses gold nanoclusters (AuNCs).²² These nanoparticles can protect their light from environmental factors that could cause interference and prevent them from fluorescing, similar to how fireflies protect their lantern’s light from rain. A second group, Srisawat and Panbagred, developed the user-friendly and cost-effective LAMP assay that detects Salmonella (ATCC® 23566™) enterotoxin stn, which is commonly found in a variety of Salmonella serovars.²³ In the study, the assay was able to detect very low concentrations of DNA.¹⁶ These cost-effective and highly specific assays make it possible to improve food safety and environmental monitoring of non-Typhoidal Salmonella.

Item 56/100: Fueling the Future: A Match Made in Microbial Heaven 
Sydney McKnight, MS, Biologist
ATCC® 51573™ – Geobacter sulfurreducens Caccavo et al.

In today's world, we heavily rely on non-renewable fuels, particularly fossil fuels, which supply about 80% of global energy and are crucial for power generation, heating, and transportation.^24,25 However, the use of fossil fuels significantly contributes to climate change, highlighting the urgent need for reliable and efficient renewable energy sources to replace these harmful fuels. One promising solution is microbial fuel cells (MFCs).²⁶ MFCs are innovative, environmentally friendly devices that convert biodegradable organic substrates into electricity using electrochemically active microorganisms as anode biocatalysts.^27-29 A notable example is Geobacter sulfurreducens strain PCA (ATCC® 51573™), an exoelectrogenic bacterium recognized for its ability to form biofilms on MFC anodes.³⁰ When this bacterium metabolizes organic substrates, it generates electrons that are transferred to the anode, which creates an electric current.^31-33 However, G. sulfurreducens has limited capability to degrade complex substrates (eg, cellulose), which can lead to reduced power outputs when used alone. To enhance energy production, researchers have combined G. sulfurreducens with Clostridium cellulolyticum strain H10 (ATCC® 35319™), an anaerobic, gram-positive bacterium known for its cellulolytic capabilities.^23,34 Isolated from decayed grass compost, C. cellulolyticum efficiently breaks down cellulose into simpler sugars that G. sulfurreducens can metabolize.³⁵ This partnership exemplifies the concept of "division of labor," where the collaboration of these two species increases substrate efficiency, enhances electron transfer, and promotes synergistic interactions.²³ The efficient degradation of cellulose by C. cellulolyticum allows for improved metabolic consumption by G. sulfurreducens, resulting in a more robust and effective renewable energy source through MFCs.²³ This innovative approach not only contributes to cleaner energy generation but also presents a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the quest for sustainable energy solutions.

Item 57/100: The Potato Protector
Emma Todd, BS, Senior Biologist
ATCC® 60850™ – Trichoderma harzianum Rifai

In agriculture, the use of microbial strains as a natural method of pest control has reduced the use of chemical pesticides and prevented the loss of crops.³⁶ These biocontrol strains also offer a more cost-effective and sustainable option for farmers as they target the pest by using the pest’s natural enemies, thus preventing collateral damage to the soil or crops. Trichoderma harzianum strain T-95 (ATCC® 60850™), a BSL-1 fungus that was deposited into the ATCC catalog by RA Baker, can be used as a biocontrol agent against Rhizoctonia solani, a major potato pathogen that causes black scurf, root rot, and Rhizoctonia canker. This fungus also has potential applications as a biofertilizer³⁷ and in the bioremediation of heavy metals and soil and water pollutants.

Item 58/100: Mining Wastewater Purifying Green Algae
Chuck Na, MS, Innovation Manager 
ATCC® 30443™ – Ulothrix gigas (Vischer) Mattox and Bold

In 1914, Wilhelm Vischer (1890-1960), freshly minted with a PhD from the University of Munich, traveled to Paraguay with his colleague Robert H. Chodat. Documented in their book “La végétation du Paraguay,”³⁸ the botanists collected numerous plants during their trip to South America, and Vischer worked on those plants for several years in Geneva, Switzerland. 

In 1930, Vischer decided to sample freshwater located in a garden in Geneva, Switzerland. He isolated a filamentous green algae that he named "strain 69," an organism that thrives in the low temperature of spring and winter.³⁹ Later identified as Ulothrix gigas, this alga was observed by subsequent researchers to thrive in notoriously polluted mine wasterwater.⁴⁰ In research published in 2012, a group in Australia found that microbes, predominantly Ulothrix, are effective for removing heavy metal pollutants from acid mine drainage.⁴¹ The algal-microbial biofilm they used removed 20-50% of copper, nickel, manganese, zinc, lead, and many other metals. 

Dr. Vischer had a long and productive career as a professor of biology—his considerable accomplishments led to him receiving the honor of having an algal genus named for him.⁴² The original strain 69 made it to ATCC via the Culture Collection of Algae at UT Austin.

Item 59/100: Bacteria/Plant Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture
Meghan Sikes, MS, Senior Biologist
ATCC® 29145™ – Azospirillum brasilense Tarrand et al.

Many are familiar with the human gut microbiome and its relation to overall health, but microbiomes also exist in various external environments almost everywhere. The soil microbiome, for instance, consists of the bacteria, fungi, and other microbes that all coexist within the rhizosphere where plant-microbe interactions occur. Free-living soil bacteria have been found to provide many benefits to plants, including promoting growth, providing nutrients, deterring plant pathogens, and stimulating better soil structure.⁴³ Bacteria like Azospirillum brasilense (ATCC® 29145™) are referred to as plant-growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) or plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) due to their ability to benefit plants via direct and/or indirect mechanisms, thus increasing crop yields.⁴⁴ PGPB are a useful and environmentally friendly tool to aide us in increasing crop output without using excess chemical fertilizers that can cause environmental damages.⁴⁵

Increasing agricultural productivity without harming the environment is important to sustainably feed the world’s population. To help improve crop outcomes in a sustainable way, A. brasilense fixes nitrogen, making it easily available to plants in the soil. A. brasilense also produces siderophores, which have a high affinity for ferric iron and can directly aide iron uptake to plant roots.⁴⁶ To harness these beneficial qualities, researchers have developed a process known as seed coating, which involves inoculating the exterior of seeds with materials such as plant beneficial microbes. Research on this process has shown that seeds coated with beneficial microbes demonstrate improved germination, increased crop yields, and improved plant stress resistance.^47,48 In a changing climate, sustainable agricultural practices and biofertilization will become increasingly important to protect our soil environment.

Did you know?

ATCC has 132 microbial strains with potential applications in cleaning up pollutants such as heavy metals, aromatic hydrocarbons, crude oil, petroleum, and industrial effluents.

Explore now

References

1. IEA. Global Methane Tracker 2024. Key Findings. Accessed online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2024/key-findings
2. Kumar M, et al. Novel methanotrophic and methanogenic bacterial communities from diverse ecosystems and their impact on environment. Biocat Agric Biotechnol 33: 102005, 2021. 
3. Saidi-Mehrabad A, et al. Methylicorpusculum oleiharenae gen. nov., sp. nov., an aerobic methanotroph isolated from an oil sands tailings pond. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 70(4): 2499-2508, 2020. PubMed: 32559826.
4. He L, et al. A methanotrophic bacterium to enable methane removal for climate mitigation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 120(35): e2310046120, 2023. PubMed: 
5. Rani A, et al. Methanotrophy: A Biological Method to Mitigate Global Methane Emission. Microbiol Res 15(2): 634-654, 2024.
6. Guerrero-Cruz S, et al.. Methanotrophs: Discoveries, Environmental Relevance, and a Perspective on Current and Future Applications. Front Microbiol 12: 678057, 2021. PubMed: 34054786
7. Koo CW, et al. Recovery of particulate methane monooxygenase structure and activity in a lipid bilayer. Science 375(6586): 1287-1291, 2022. PubMed: 35298269
8. Bellini S. On a unique behavior of freshwater bacteria. Chin J Ocean Limnol 27 (1): 1-5, 2009.
9. Blakemore R. Magnetotactic Bacteria. Science 190 (4212): 377–379, 1975. PubMed: 170679
10. Frankel RB, Blakemore RP. Magnetic Navigation in Bacteria. Scientific American 245(6): 58–65, 1981.
11. Nordmann GC, et al. Magnetoreception—A sense without a receptor. PLOS Biol 15(10): e2003234, 2017. PubMed: 29059181
12. Matsunaga T, et al. Magnetite formation by a magnetic bacterium capable of growing aerobically. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 35: 651-655, 1991.
13. Bala S, et al. Recent Strategies for Bioremediation of Emerging Pollutants: A Review for a Green and Sustainable Environment. Toxics 10(8): 484, 2022. PubMed: 36006163
14. Hlihor RM, et al. Bioremediation: An Overview on Current Practices, Advances, and New Perspectives in Environmental Pollution Treatment. Biomed Res Int 2017: 6327610, 2017. PubMed: 29226144
15. Demaria F, et al. Microbes as Resources to Remove PPCPs and Improve Water Quality. Microb Biotechnol 18(1): e70084, 2025. PubMed: 39869488
16. Seo JS, Keum YS, Li QX. Bacterial degradation of aromatic compounds. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6(1): 278-309, 2009. PubMed: 19440284
17. Denome SA, et al. Metabolism of dibenzothiophene and naphthalene in Pseudomonas strains: complete DNA sequence of an upper naphthalene catabolic pathway. J Bacteriol 175(21): 6890-6901, 1993. PubMed: 8226631 
18. Roman EKB, et al. Plastic-degrading microbial communities reveal novel microorganisms, pathways, and biocatalysts for polymer degradation and bioplastic production. Sci Total Environ 949: 174876, 2024. PubMed: 39067601
19. Ward PG, et al. A two step chemo-biotechnological conversion of polystyrene to a biodegradable thermoplastic. Environ Sci Technol 40(7): 2433-2437, 2006. PubMed: 16649270.
20. Fàbrega A, Vila J. Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Skills To Succeed in the Host: Virulence and Regulation. Clin Microbiol Rev 26(2): 308–341, 2013. PubMed: 23554419
21. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology. Technical Information Regarding Salmonella enterica Typhi and Typhimurium, 2024.
22. Wu Q, et al. Firefly Lantern-Inspired AIE-Enhanced Gold nanocluster microspheres for ultrasensitive detection of foodborne pathogenic bacteria. Sensor Actuat B-Chem 422: 136584, 2024.
23. Srisawat M, Panbangred W. Efficient and specific detection of Salmonella in food samples using ASTN-Based Loop-Mediated isothermal amplification method. Biomed Res Int 2015: 356401, 2015. PubMed: 26543859
24. U.S. Energy Information Administration. “U.S. Energy Facts Explained.” Eia.gov, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 15 July 2024, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/.
25. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. “Fossil Fuels.” Eesi.org, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 22 July 2021, www.eesi.org/topics/fossil-fuels/description.
26. “Burning of Fossil Fuels.” Understanding Global Change, University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2025, ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/burning-of-fossil-fuels/.
27. Obileke KC, et al. Microbial Fuel Cells, a Renewable Energy Technology for Bio-Electricity Generation: A Mini-Review. Electrochem Commun 125(107003): 107003, 2021.
28. Slate AJ, et al. Microbial Fuel Cells: An Overview of Current Technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 101(1): 60–81, 2019.
29. Jiang Yujing, et al. Harvesting Energy from Cellulose through Geobacter sulfurreducens in Unique Ternary Culture. Anal Chim Acta 1050: 44–50, 2019. PubMed: 30661590
30. Nevin KP, et al. Power Output and Columbic Efficiencies from Biofilms of Geobacter sulfurreducens Comparable to Mixed Community Microbial Fuel Cells. Environ Microbiol 10(10): 2505–2514, 2008. PubMed: 18564184
31. Ren Zhiyong, et al. Electricity Production from Cellulose in a Microbial Fuel Cell Using a Defined Binary Culture. Environ Sci Technol 41(13): 4781–4786, 2007. PubMed: 17695929
32. Howley E, et al. Geobacter sulfurreducens’ Unique Metabolism Results in Cells with a High Iron and Lipid Content. Microbiol Spectr 10(6): e0259322, 2022. PubMed: 36301091
33. Speers AM, Reguera G. Electron Donors Supporting Growth and Electroactivity of Geobacter sulfurreducens Anode Biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 78(2): 437–444, 2012. PubMed: 22101036
34. Pahalagedara ASNW et al. Antimicrobial Production by Strictly Anaerobic Clostridium spp. Int J Antimirob Agents 55(5): 105910, 2020. PubMed: 31991218
35. Desvaux M. Clostridium cellulolyticum: Model Organism of Mesophilic Cellulolytic Clostridia. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29(4): 741–764, 2020. PubMed: 16102601
36. ATCC. Biocontrol. Accessed online: https://www.atcc.org/microbe-products/applications/environmental/biocontrol
37. Chang YC, et al. Increased growth of plants in the presence of the biological control agent Trichoderma harzianum. Plant Dis 70: 145-148, 1986.
38. Chodat R, Vischer W. La végétation du Paraguay: résultats scientifiques d’une mission botanique suisse au Paraguay. V. Malpighiacées. Bulletin de la Société botanique de Genève 9: 55–107, 1917.
39. Guiry MD, John DM, Rindi F, McCarthy TK (ed.). New Survey of Clare Island Volume: The Freshwater and Terrestrial Algae. Royal Irish Academy. ISBN 978-1-904890-31-7, 2007.
40. Orandi S, et al. Distribution and Role of Green Algae in Acid Mine Drainage at Sarcheshmeh Copper Mine. Scientific Quarterly Journal of Geosciences, 18(72), 173-185, 2009.
41. Orandi S, Lewis DM, Moheimani NR. Biofilm establishment and heavy metal removal capacity of an indigenous mining algal-microbial consortium in a photo-rotating biological contactor. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 39(9): 1321–1331, 2012. PubMed: 22644382
42. Stafleu FA, Cowan RS. Taxonomic literature : a selective guide to botanical publications and collections with dates, commentaries and types. (Vol. 6, p. 752, 1986) Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.
43. Hayat R, et al. Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion: a review. Ann Microbiol 60, 579–598, 2010.
44. Timmusk S, et al. Perspectives and Challenges of Microbial Application for Crop Improvement. Front Plant Sci 8: 49, 2017. PubMed: 28232839
45. Gómez-Godínez LJ, et al. A Look at Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria. Plants (Basel) 12(8): 1668, 2023. PubMed: 37111891
46. Glick BR. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: mechanisms and applications. Scientifica (Cairo) 2012: 963401, 2012. PubMed: 24278762
47. Rocha I, et al. Seed Coating: A Tool for Delivering Beneficial Microbes to Agricultural Crops. Front Plant Sci 10: 1357, 2019. PubMed: 31781135
48. Malusá E, Sas-Paszt L, Ciesielska J. Technologies for beneficial microorganisms inocula used as biofertilizers. ScientificWorldJournal 2012: 491206, 2012. PubMed: 22547984