AbstractDue to their nitrogen-fixing capabilities, cyanobacteria hold significant potential for wastewater bioremediation through nutrient removal and modulation of the microbial community. The current study explored these traits using the cyanobacterium Trichormus variabilis strain AICB 1382 in combination with natural zeolites to treat municipal wastewater effluent. A combination of colorimetric, gravimetric, and 16 S/18S rDNA amplicon sequencing analyses was used to evaluate nutrient removal rates, biomass yield, and microbial community structure. The zeolites-AICB 1382 pair features (i.e. gradual release of nutrients by zeolites and vertical distribution of the cyanobacterium) enabled the stratification of the culturing system into three layers with distinct morphology and microbial populations. Results showed efficient removal of nitrate (up to 91.8%), ammonium (up to 97%), and phosphate (up to 99.2%), with enhanced biomass yields in zeolite-enriched cultures. T. variabilis reduced the diversity of the prokaryotic and eukaryotic community, lowering the presence of multidrug-resistant bacteria, whereas zeolites promoted the development of AICB 1382 and increased microbial diversity. The three-layer culturing system offers a promising solution for nutrient reclamation, biomass production, and pathogen reduction, with potential for scale-up as a semi-continuous, self-sustaining method that facilitates biomass harvesting while ensuring environmental safety for agricultural reuse or discharge into urban rivers.
IntroductionCyanobacteria can thrive in various habitats, from dry lands1 to various water sources, where they produce oxygen and regulate the nitrate/ammonium (NO3−/NH4+) : phosphate (PO43−) ratio by nitrogen (N2) fixation. N2-fixing cyanobacteria were considered as alternatives to synthetic nitrogen fertilizers2 whose usage resulted in significant environmental pollution3 by soil acidification, humus decrement4, groundwater eutrophication3, and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions5. Their efficacy lies in the efficiency of N2-fixation that may reach up to 60 kg/ha/season of N2 using Anabaena species6 and their ability to tolerate various, even extreme conditions7. Cyanobacteria have been widely used in bioremediation8, to reduce the levels of NH4+, NO3− (to synthesize proteins e.g., phycocyanin), PO43− and to reduce the level of pathogenic bacteria9. Although recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of Trichormus cyanobacterial extracts in promoting plant growth2, the authors emphasized the need for a phosphorus-enriched growth medium for T. variabilis. To address the natural scarcity and rapid depletion of phosphorus, they proposed utilizing wastewater as a phosphorus-rich alternative source.One way to alleviate the need to supply nutrients involves culturing microalgae (cyanobacteria included) in piggery wastewater (WW)10, municipal WW11, and aquaculture WW12. Beyond WW organic load, cyanobacterial species were selected for traits that enhance bioremediation efficiency and facilitate biomass harvesting. Many cyanobacterial species (e.g. Nostoc muscorum, Anabaena subcylindrica, A. oryzae, Spirulina platensis, and Geitlerinema sp.) have been investigated for their potential use for reclamation of WW8. Different methods were used to tackle the harvesting process, either by using cyanobacteria rich in biopolymers (i.e. slime, sheath, and capsule)13 that ease the formation of aggregates or by building cyanobacteria – trophic-related bacteria consortia14,15. Self-sustained consortia efficiently remove the biological oxygen demand (BOD) from the WW treatment plants (WWTP), clean up pollutants16 and recover nutrients coupled with mitigation of CO217. This lowers the cost for aeration, which accounts for at least 50% of the energy inputs and expenses in biological treatment plants (TP)18.This study advances nutrient reclamation and cyanobacterial biomass production by developing a three-layer system combining T. variabilis AICB 1382, zeolites as substrate and the effluent from a municipal WWTP. Given that this effluent is currently discharged into an urban river, the study focused on characterizing microbial community dynamics, including the presence and reduction of pathogenic bacteria. T. variabilis (formerly Anabaena variabilis) was selected as a suitable candidate for this study owing to its tolerance to temperature fluctuations, its biofertilizer potential2, and its capacity to grow in municipal WW environments19. The three-layer system was created by including natural zeolites, which are crystalline-hydrated aluminosilicates of alkaline and earth-alkaline elements (particularly of sodium and calcium). Due to their high capacity to exchange cations20, the zeolites have been used for culturing cyanobacteria like Arthrospira21, but also for remediation purposes22. The zeolites can adsorb cells23 and can be used for EPS-producing bacteria immobilization24. The study aimed to investigate (i) the effect of T. variabilis on nutrient reclamation and its biomass productivity; (ii) the potential of T. variabilis to inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria containing multidrug resistance genes, which occur in the effluent25, with the future aim of scaling the system before discharging the effluent into the river and, ii) the self-sustaining capacity of the culturing system based on its three-layer disposal. The analyses included the nutrient (NO3−/NH4+ and PO43−) removal rate, the biomass yield, and the prokaryotic and eukaryotic community based on 16 S rDNA/18S rDNA amplicon sequencing.ResultsThree-layer culturing system – nutrient recovery and biomass productivityStrain AICB 1382 formed buoyant, filamentous clusters in BG11 medium. In EZC system, the strain formed two distinct biomass layers separated by a clear effluent phase. The upper layer resembled a thick biofilm, composed of long, overlapping cyanobacterial filaments interspersed with bacteria, as observed by light microscopy. The lower layer on the zeolite surface appeared thin, homogeneous, and displayed an intense blue colour.Nutrient recovery analysis revealed a generally higher rate for ammonium (NH₄⁺) compared to nitrate (NO₃⁻), with overall removal rate reaching 97% and 91.8%, respectively (Fig. S1A,B; Table S1). In experiments E1 and E2, treatments containing AICB 1382 (EC and EZC) consistently outperformed the zeolite-only control (EZ) in terms of nutrient recovery (Fig. S1A−C). Specifically, nitrate removal rates ranged from 17.4 to 76.4% in EZ, 80.1–88% in EC, and 67.1–91.8% in EZC. Ammonium removal followed a similar trend, ranging from 65.1 to 76.4% in EZ, 80.2–96.8% in EC, and 67.1–97% in EZC. Phosphate (PO₄³⁻) removal was lowest in the EZ treatment (38.4–62.3%), increased substantially in EC (89.8–99.2%), and remained high in EZC (90.3–93.87%) (Fig. S1A–C; Table S1). These results underscore the synergistic effect of combining the cyanobacterium with zeolite, enhancing nutrient uptake and suggesting improved wastewater remediation potential.Biomass productivity also varied depending on the effluent and treatment applied (Fig. S1D; Table S2). The highest biomass yield was consistently recorded in the system cultured with E2E effluent, reflecting the influence of effluent composition on cyanobacterial growth. Across all experimental conditions, the lowest biomass accumulation was observed in EZ, followed by EC, with the EZC treatment producing the highest yields. Overall biomass production ranged from 47.1 mg L⁻¹ day⁻¹ in EC to 156.2 mg L⁻¹ day⁻¹ in EZC, highlighting the significant contribution of both the cyanobacterium and the zeolite substrate to enhanced growth and potential for downstream biomass utilization (Fig. S1D; Table S2).Analysis of the prokaryotic communityComposite samples analysisThe analysis of the composite samples collected by mixing all the layers showed that the treatments applied were one of the factors that shaped the taxa and their abundance in the prokaryotic community. The beta diversity analysis by PCoA (Fig. S2) matched the clusters with the treatments: effluent (E), EZ, and EC/EZC. The last two were separated in the UPGMA clustering (Fig. 1) which emphasizes sample similarity without reducing dimensions like PCoA.Fig. 1UPGMA clustering of the biomass samples collected from the three experiments (E1, E2, E3) based on the OTUs abundance using the Bray-Curtis similarity matrix. Each experiment included the effluent (E), EZ, and 2 containers (A and B) of EZC. The experiments E1 and E2 also tested the EC condition.Full size imageAlpha-diversity assay strengthened and deepened this result showing differences in taxa occurrence, abundance, diversity, and dominance (Fig. S3). The number of taxa (Chao-1 index) differed between the effluents and the treatments, but their abundance and diversity (Evenness and Shannon-H indices) showed a similar pattern for the effluent (E) and the EZ condition (Fig. S4). No dominant taxa were found in these tanks, contrary to EC/EZC conditions. Comparison between the treatments pointed out a significant difference (ANOVA test) between the effluent (E) and the EZC samples based on the Shannon-H index (F(3, 10) = 17.911, p <.001) (Table S3). Levene’s test indicated that the variances were homogenous, F(3, 10) = 3.043, p =.079; thus, Tukey’s HSD Test for multiple comparisons showed that the mean value of the Shannon-H index was significantly different (p <.001, 95% C.I. = [1.550, 4.326]).Another factor that influenced the structure of the prokaryotic community was the effluent type. Within the same cluster (EZ/EZC), the samples cultured in the first two effluents clustered separately from the third (Fig. 1), suggesting a separation due to the effluent microbial load. This fact was confirmed by the OTUs analysis (Fig. 2) where E1E and E2E shared 619 OTUs from 1389 to 1555 OTUs, making them more similar than the third effluent (482 OTUs). Even though their Chao-1 index was slightly different (Fig. S3), the first two effluents had equal OTU abundance (Evenness index). The Shannon-H index indicated a greater variety of species and a fairer distribution of individuals among species without dominant taxa in E1E and E2E than in E3E.Fig. 2The number of microbial OTUs and their common cores in the E1E, E2E, and E3E effluents. Each OTU was represented by a bullet. The numbers at the periphery indicate the unique OTUs specific to each effluent, while the overlapping areas represent the OTUs shared among the effluents.Full size imageDuring culturing, the OTUs lowered in all tanks (Fig. 3A) retaining a common core for all samples (three-point and composite) (Fig. S5A-C) as follows: 16 OTUs in E1, 32 in E2, and 26 in E3 at the end of the experiments (Fig. S5A−C), regardless of culturing conditions. Thus, these OTUs were unresponsive to the conditions tested. Except for the common core or overlapping between two or more samples, each sample had a specific number of OTUs present (Fig. S5D−F).Fig. 3The species richness (A), evenness (B), dominance (C), and diversity (D) indices based on the OTU abundances from different culturing conditions: EZ, EC, and EZC. The three-point samples were collected from the top (1), middle (2), and bottom (3) layers of the tanks. E = effluent.Full size imageThree-point samples analysisBeyond the effects of culture conditions created by zeolites, strain AICB 1382, and the effluent composition, the microbial community exhibited variation among the three layers. When AICB 1382 was present (EC/EZC) the culturing system exhibited three distinctive layers. Layers 1 and 3 were significantly different from layer 2 according to the alpha diversity indices. The evenness (Fig. 3B), and the total diversity (Fig. 3D) indices were significantly larger in layer 2 relative to the evenness (ANOVA test F(9, 26) = 13.670, p <.001) and the diversity index (ANOVA test, F(9, 26) = 15.694, p <.001) of the samples collected from layers 1 and 3 (Tables S4, S5). Levene’s test showed homogenous variances in both cases, F(9, 26) = 2.498/1.070, p =.033/0.416; thus, the Post-Hoc analyses using Tukey’s HSD test showed a significant difference (p <.001) between ECZ1/ECZ3 and the rest of the samples.The Dominance_D index (Fig. 3C) revealed that the microbial communities from layers 1 and 3 were dominated by a few taxa with high relative abundance. The SIMPER (Similarity Percentage) analysis outlined T. variabilis AICB 1382 among the top taxa that accounted for the differences among the samples (Table S6) and most probably was responsible with the large dominance index registered for layers 1 and 3. This taxon contributed the most to the overall dissimilarity among growth conditions (35.74%) from the top ten OTUs shown (49.27%). The variations in the relative abundance across layers supported the clustering patterns observed in the PCoA analysis (Fig. S6) and the UPGMA dendrogram (Fig. 4) which split the top and bottom layers from the middle layer for the EC/EZC conditions. For these treatments, middle-layer samples were partitioned by effluent type, with E1/E3 distinguished from E2.Fig. 4UPGMA hierarchical clustering of the three-point samples (in different colors) based on the OTUs abundance using Bray-Curtis similarity matrix. Each experiment included the effluent (E), EZ, and 2 containers (A and B) of EZC. The experiments E1 and E2 included the EC condition.Full size imagePhylum-level analysisPhylum-level analysis of composite samples revealed distinct variation in microbial composition (Figs. 5, S7). In the AICB 1382-systems (EC/EZC), several phyla – NB1-j, Cyanobacteria, Gemmatimonadota, Acidobacteriota, Verrucomicrobiota, and Planctomycetota – were primarily observed. These were either underrepresented or absent in the effluent samples. Additional heterotrophic phyla such as Summerlaeota and WPS-2 (Eremiobacterota) were commonly associated. Deinococcota which appeared sporadically in the effluent, Dependentiae phylum, known for its intracellular lifestyle26 and Patescibacteria characterized by minimal genomes27 and epibiotic growth were better represented in AICB 1382 trials.Fig. 5Heatmap (scaled by row) of the first 35 phyla relative abundance in the total biomass collected from the effluent (E), EZ, EC, and EZC (tanks A and B) from E1, E2, and E3 experiments.Full size imageConversely, Proteobacteria (now Pseudomonadota), Bacteroidota, and Actinobacteriota were dominant across all treatments but were most abundant in effluent and EZ (zeolite only) conditions.Approximately 50% of the phyla present in effluents were not detected after culturing. These lost taxa included several anaerobic and extremophilic groups such as Crenarchaeota, Euryarchaeota, Nanoarchaeota, Halobacteriota, Margulisbacteria, Elusimicrobiota, Desulfobacterota, and Fibrobacterota. Additionally, human-associated or potentially pathogenic families belonging to Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Campylobacterota, Fusobacteriota, Synergistota, Bacillota (formerly Firmicutes), and Spirochaetota were observed primarily in the effluents, but they were almost absent in the layers dominated by AICB 1382 (Fig. S8). Most genera detected showed abundances below 1% (e.g., Enterobacter spp., Escherichia–Shigella spp., Rickettsia spp., Corynebacterium spp., Mycoplasma spp., and Lachnoclosterium spp.). However, some genera such as Closterium spp., Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., Legionella spp., Aeromonas spp., and Mycobacterium spp. accounted for at least 1% of the microbial community when present. The largest values were encountered for Legionella spp. and Clostridium spp. (cca. 4%), and Pseudomonas spp. (cca. 18%). These genera were also identified in the same effluent in a previous study, where they were associated with a high prevalence of antibiotic resistance genes25. The presence of Legionella (7 OTUs), Clostridium (8 OTUs), Pseudomonas (10 OTUs), Acinetobacter (10 OTUs) and Mycobacterium (8 OTUs) genera in the WWs could represent a potential health risk once they enter the receiving rivers, as they are considered important waterborne pathogens25. The presence of the oceanic and hydrothermal vent-associated phylum SAR32428 occurred in the effluent samples.Analysis of the eukaryotic communityComposite samples analysisThe eukaryotic community composition was driven by the same factors, i.e. culture conditions and the effluent microbial load. Unlike the prokaryotic community, the structure of the eukaryotic community was affected more by the effluent than by the treatment applied. PCoA of the composite samples revealed only partial separation according to the applied treatment (Fig. S9). However, clustering analysis (Fig. 6) provided greater resolution, distinguishing the EC/EZC samples from the first and third experiments from those of the second experiment, suggesting a potential effluent-driven grouping. OTU composition showed differences between effluents, with E2E showing the highest diversity (200 OTUs), compared to E1E (102 OTUs) and E3E (25 OTUs) (Fig. S10). At the end of the experiments, the EZC trials retained from the effluent a greater number of taxa than EZ/EC combinations (Fig. S11A−C). Similar to the prokaryotes, each sample harbored a set of distinct eukaryotic taxa (Fig. S11D−F).Fig. 6UPGMA clustering of the biomass samples from the E1, E2, and E3 experiments based on the OTUs abundance, using Kulczynski distance. Each experiment included the effluent (E), EZ, and A and B duplicates of EZC. The E1 and E2 tested the EC condition.Full size imageOverall, alpha diversity indices showed a decline in the species richness during culturing and a similar pattern of the species diversity throughout all samples, except for E3EZC, where it slightly increased, probably due to the larger abundance (Fig. S12A−C). This condition exhibited the highest diversity and abundance indices, along with the lowest Dominance_D, indicating that effluent type played a key role in shaping the community.Three-point samples analysisThe ANOVA assay of the samples collected from the three layers revealed no significant differences between groups (p ≥.001), regardless of experiment, culture condition, or sampling point (Fig. 7A−D). Beta-diversity assay by PCoA and UPGMA (Figs. 8, S13,) further demonstrated that clustering was influenced by the effluent composition and condition tested. In particular, all samples from the EZ trial clustered together; however, the AICB 1382–containing groups separated by effluent type, with E1 and E3 samples distinct from those of the E2 experiment (Fig. 8). The sampling point did not influence the grouping.Fig. 7The species richness, evenness, dominance and diversity indices based on the OTUs abundances from the eukaryotic samples. The samples were grouped by culture conditions EZ, EC, EZC and sampling points (top (1), middle (2) and the bottom layer (3)) (C, D), and by experiment (E1, E2, E3) (A, B). E = effluent samples. The colour of the bars represents group affiliation (shown in the upper right corner of each chart), while the gradient of the bullets indicates variation in the second variable analysed (shown in the lower right corner of each chart).Full size imageFig. 8UPGMA hierarchical clustering of the samples (colour-coded) collected from the three distinct layers: top (1), middle (2), and bottom (3), based on the OTUs abundance using Kulczynski distance. Each experiment included the effluent (E), EZ, and A and B duplicates of EZC. The E1 and E2 included the EC conditi.Full size imageSIMPER analysis showed 93.94% average dissimilarity between the four main clades (Table S7). The top 10 OTUs accounted for 49.44% of overall dissimilarity, primarily including Bacillariophyceae, Xanthophyceae, Cryptomycota, and other heterotrophic taxa.Phylum-level analysisThe analysis of the top 35 most abundant eukaryotic phyla in composite samples and across the three sampling points (Figs. 9, S13) revealed differences among the three effluents (E1E, E2E, and E3E) and culturing conditions (EZ, EC, and EZC). The E1E effluent was dominated by taxa belonging to Stramenopiles – frequently found in urban wastewater29 and Cryptophyceae, known for thriving in diverse environments30 Most of these taxa disappeared during culturing as well as the predators (by myzocystosis) (subphylum Protalveolata)31 and anaerobic phagotrophs (MAST-12 group (Opalomonadea))32 which did not persist post-cultivation. Similarly, in E2E, dominant metazoans like Annelida, Platyhelminthes, Mollusca, and Cnidaria, saprotrophs and parasites from Hyphochytridiomycota33, soil fungi from Basidiomycota and LKM1534, were lost during cultivation. None of these phyla, except for Protalveolata, were identified in the E3E eukaryotic community. This effluent stood out by its abundance of free-living protists from the Centrohelida phylum, found in most aquatic benthic environments where they feed on bacteria and other protists35, and the species-rich Euglenozoa phylum, which contains free-living, parasitic, heterotrophic, and photosynthetic organisms36.Fig. 9Heatmap (scaled by row) of the first 35 eukaryotic phyla sorted according to their relative abundance in the biomass collected from the effluent (E), EZ, EC, and A and B duplicates of EZC. Data Availability. The 16 S rDNA and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (rbcL) gene sequences generated during the current study are available in GenBank database with the following IDs PV521982 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/PV521982) and PV533918 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/PV533918). The 16 S/18S rDNA amplicon datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Trichormus variabilis AICB 1382 strain was deposited in the AICB Culture Collection and is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.Full size imageAn interesting observation was the presence of some taxa at the end of the experiments but their absence at the start in the corresponding effluents (i.e. E1E and E3E), such as Euglenozoa and Centrohelida phyla, in the E1EZ biomass, (Fig. 9), likely the result of sequencing limitations in detecting rare or low-abundance organisms37. Additionally, saprobic, chitin, and keratin-degrading chytrids from Chytridiomycota, which can occasionally act as parasites38, were also identified. Although not present in the E3E community, taxa from the phyla Streptophyta (Viridiplantae), Phragmoplastophyta, and small meiobenthic worm- or cone-shaped animals from Gastrotricha that occur in high abundances in freshwater, marine, and brackish environments39 were identified in high abundance in the EZ sample cultured in this effluent (Figs. 9, S13).In the tested trials (EZ/EC/EZC), green algae (unassigned Chloroplastida) and diatoms (Bacillaryophyta) proliferated in all EZ samples regardless of the effluent type with co-occurring microbial phyla NB1-j, but they were sporadically present in the EC/EZC treatments. In EC/EZC cultures, the dominant phyla were primarily heterotrophs and decomposers. Dominant groups included Labyrinthulomycetes, typically marine saprotrophs or parasites40, free-living heterotrophic protists from phylum Rigifilida41, and fungi like Ascomycota and Cryptomycota42.E1EZC stood out due to its diverse and abundant eukaryotic community, including saprotrophs and parasites soil-fungi from Blastochlamidiomycota43, plant-interacting fungi from Mucoromycota44, molds that feed on bacteria from Fonticula45, and amoeboid taxa like Heterolobosea, biflagellated protists from soil and aquatic habitats from Ancyromonadida46, and free-living amoebae from soil and freshwater Nucleariidae47. These were joined by consumer phyla such as Cercozoa, Ciliophora, and Rotifera, commonly found in urban WW, particularly during warmer seasons29.The clustering analysis (Fig. S14) did not reveal a consistent grouping based on treatment or sampling point. The E2E effluent was more distantly placed compared to E1E and E3E, which intermixed with the cultured samples.DiscussionCommunity composition in engineered aquatic systems was shaped by interacting factors—zeolites, AICB 1382, and effluent type—causing spatial stratification. Due to its buoyant properties, T. variabilis AICB 1382 induced vertical stratification and formed two layers. The upper biofilm layer likely formed due to extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), which vary with conditions and microbial interactions13. Cyanobacterial EPS and oxygen promote bacterial growth, while bacterial metabolism supports algae via CO₂ release and organic matter breakdown48. The intense blue color in the EZC biomass suggests phycobiliprotein (phycocyanin, allophycocyanin) accumulation, sensitive to nitrogen49. Zeolites likely enhanced this by adsorbing and slowly releasing NH₄⁺, reducing volatilization and maintaining nutrient supply50. This localized NH₄⁺ may have supported the cyanobacterial layer at the zeolite surface, as NH₄⁺ is energetically preferred over NO₃⁻51.Effluent type and culturing conditions significantly impacted nutrient removal rate. EC/EZC systems showed the highest PO43− and NO3−/NH4+ removal rate, while EZ performed best with E3E effluent, indicating an effluent-specific effect. Nitrogen recovery matched or exceeded reported rates for Anabaena subcylindrica (19.6–80%) and Nostoc muscorum (20.9–96%)52,53,54. Phosphate removal rate was also comparable or superior to values for A. subcylindrica, N. muscorum (50–81%), Phormidium sp. (62%)55, and Arthrospira sp., which also reduced NH₄⁺ from 100 mg L⁻¹ to < 1 mg L⁻¹56,57. The enhanced performance in cyanobacteria-containing setups likely stemmed from consortia formation between AICB 1382 and native microbiota, known to boost nutrient recovery58. Although zeolite-enhanced systems yielded higher biomass, the observed productivity remains below potential levels reported in literature. For instance, Anabaena sp. reached 720 mg L⁻¹ day⁻¹ in synthetic medium and 400 mg L⁻¹ day⁻¹ in diluted pig slurry, with associated nitrogen removal rates of up to 2471 mg m⁻² day⁻¹59. This suggests that nutrient limitation constrained the biomass accumulation. Future optimisation efforts should consider macronutrient supplementation or the use of nutrient-rich influents to achieve the full potential of the AICB 1382 strain.Effluent composition had the strongest effect on eukaryotic communities, outweighing the influence of AICB 1382 or culturing design. Clustering analysis showed no consistent grouping by treatment or sampling stage, with E2E’s distinct position highlighting effluent chemistry’s role. The difference in the effluent’s chemistry may be due to the seasonal and operational changes in WWTP which introduce variability in the microbial populations60,61. Nutrient stoichiometry, especially deviations from the Redfield N/P ratio of 16 (range: 8.2–45.0), strongly influences microbial diversity62,63. Nevertheless, core bacterial groups—Proteobacteria, Bacteroidota, and Actinobacteriota—were consistently present, reflecting their ecological importance and adaptability in freshwater systems64. Interestingly, SAR324—a bacterial phylum common in oceans, especially near hydrothermal vents—was detected in the effluent samples28, likely originating from the activated sludge microbial community of the WWTP.Zeolites acted as slow-release nutrient carriers and colonization surfaces, promoting both autotrophic and heterotrophic taxa. When combined with AICB 1382, they enhanced diversity, likely supporting rare or slow-growing species65. These effects varied with effluent and culture type, underscoring the need to align interventions with environmental conditions. Zeolites’ aluminosilicate structure favored not only Bacillariophyta but other unassigned Chloroplastida growth in the EZ trial, though T. variabilis competition in EZC conditions likely reduced their abundance. The presence of NB1-j phyla66 further supported diatom viability.The spatial heterogeneity induced by AICB 1382 formed microzones favoring functionally distinct taxa64, including bacteriochlorophyll-a and rhodopsin-bearing groups like Myxococcota, Chloroflexi, and Gemmatimonadota in cyanobacteria-rich layers67,68. Cyanobacteria-associated taxa like Summerlaeota and Eremiobacterota were enriched in cyanobacteria-containing systems69,70, while the presence of resilient Deinococcota71 underscored the selective pressures of engineered environments. N2-fixing cyanobacteria also supported the growth of Verrucomicrobiota, Planctomycetota, and NB1-j, all key players in nutrient cycling and organic matter transformation66,71,72.EC/EZC trials enriched by T. variabilis’ photosynthesis, supported diverse eukaryotic heterotrophs and decomposers commonly associated with primary producers. Elevated biodiversity in samples like E3EZC may reflect higher organic matter from intensified photosynthesis, fostering trophic complexity, or may result from native microbiota or effluent-specific nutrient profiles.Several prokaryotic and eukaryotic phyla declined or disappeared, likely due to oxygenation, competition, or suppression by cyanobacterial metabolites73, suggesting a possible sanitizing effect of the three-layer culturing systems. Lost taxa included extremophiles from salt lakes, intestines, anoxic sediments, and sludge digesters (e.g., Crenarchaeota, Euryarchaeota, Nanoarchaeota, Halobacteriota, Margulisbacteria, Elusimicrobiota, Desulfobacterota)74,75,76,77,78, and gut-associated Fibrobacterota79. Most importantly, detected pathogens form Campylobacterota (formerly Epsilonproteobacteria)80;, Fusobacteriota81; Synergistota, linked to human disease and found in WW, soil, and wells82; Bacillota (Firmicutes)83; and Spirochaetota, also84 were not found at the end of the experiments. Genera like Acinetobacter (Proteobacteria, Moraxellaceae) and Mycobacterium (Actinobacteria) have been positively correlated with the prevalence of carbapenemase-encoding genes which are critical antibiotic resistance determinants25. The occurrence of potential pathogens in effluents underscores WW-related microbial risks, while their elimination in this three-layer system highlights its promise as a future biotechnological approach for WW sanitation and microbial risk mitigation.Conclusion and perspectivesMost harmful bacterial phyla were reduced or eliminated after 14 days of culturing, likely due to oxygen exposure and the allelopathic effects of T. variabilis AICB 1382. This suggests the zeolite–AICB 1382 system poses minimal environmental risk for agricultural use or discharge into surface waters.The AICB 1382 strain dominated EC/EZC treatments, reducing bacterial diversity, whereas zeolites helped maintain higher microbial diversity, particularly in the bottom layer. The three-point sampling revealed distinct microbial stratification, with culturing conditions having the strongest impact on community composition, followed by effluent properties. Zeolites facilitated spatial separation of AICB 1382, contributing to this stratification.Overall, the culture system demonstrated that zeolites and AICB 1382 could modulate the eukaryotic community structure, but the effluent’s chemical background largely dictated the trajectory and clustering of eukaryotic taxa.In conclusion, microbial community dynamics in these systems emerge from the synergistic and antagonistic interplay between effluent characteristics, spatial configuration, and engineered interventions. Zeolites and T. variabilis served as both structural and biological agents capable of shaping ecological outcomes – from diversity reduction to functional specialization. This study demonstrates that combining stratification, nutrient modulation, and bioaugmentation can optimize microbial ecosystems for nutrient recovery, pathogen control, and ecological resilience. Harvested cyanobacterial biomass can be applied in agriculture or safely discharged, while the remaining biomass and zeolites can be reused to inoculate subsequent batches. Applications of the biomass on plants will be addressed in a forthcoming study.”Materials and methodsStrain selection and inoculum preparationThirty xenic cyanobacterial strains from the Algal and Cyanobacterial Culture Collection (AICB), Cluj-Napoca85, were screened for N₂ fixation, growth in effluent, and cell aggregation. Axenic cultures were not used, as the non-sterile effluent and outdoor conditions make contamination unavoidable. Cultures were grown in nitrogen-free BG11 medium86 under natural light (southern exposure) at 19 ± 2 °C. Biomass was sampled for DNA and microscopy, with two transfers into fresh medium to reach exponential growth before inoculation into effluent. Strain AICB 1382 was selected based on its filament aggregation and dark blue color in effluent. Biomass was harvested (4000 rpm, 7 min), weighed, and used in experiments.Light microscopy and taxonomic affiliationMorphological analysis was done using light and fluorescence microscopy with a Nikon TE-2000 Eclipse microscope, and images were captured with a Nikon D90 camera. DNA was extracted using Quick-DNA™ Fecal/Soil Microbe Kits (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA, USA), following the manufacturer’s protocol. PCR and sequencing targeted 16 S rDNA and rbcL genes using primers from Rudi et al.87 and Frank et al.88. The PCR mix included 1.25 U DreamTaq DNA Polymerase (Fermentas, Canada), 1.5 mM MgCl₂, 0.2 mM dNTPs, and 0.4 µM primers in 50 µl total volume. Amplification was done with a Biometra TGradient cycler under standard conditions. Sequencing was performed by Macrogen Europe BV (The Netherlands), and sequences were deposited in GenBank89 under IDs PV521982 and PV533918. Taxonomic identification as Trichormus variabilis was confirmed via BLAST search89 against the GenBank Core Nucleotide database.Experimental design and sampling assayThe 14-day experiment was performed using three separate effluent batches (E1E, E2E, E3E), resulting in three consecutive experimental runs (E1, E2, and E3). Three treatments were tested: effluent with zeolites (EZ), AICB 1382 cultured in effluent with zeolites (EZC), and AICB 1382 cultured in effluent without zeolites (EC). In the E3 run, the EC treatment was omitted due to logistical constraints. Each treatment was applied in a single container, except for EZC, which included two containers labelled A and B. Glass containers (30 × 19 × 20 cm) were kept at 23 ± 2 °C under a 16:8-h light/dark cycle with fluorescent light (25 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹) and placed near a window (northern exposure) to enhance natural illumination. The final irradiance ranged from 40 to 50 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹, varying with weather conditions (sunny versus cloudy days). No stirring was applied to prevent filament breakage55. Unfiltered effluent (1.780 L) originating from the activated sludge process of the municipal wastewater treatment plant in Cluj County, Romania, was collected in September (E1E), August (E2E), and July (E3E). Zeolites (271 g, 3–5 mm, Zeolites Production, Brașov, Romania) were added in EZ and EZC conditions, forming a 0.5 cm layer across 570 cm². AICB 1382 inoculum (500 mg wet biomass) was added to each condition; in EZC, it was mixed with zeolites and layered before pouring the effluent (4 cm liquid hight).Sampling was performed in duplicate at both the beginning and the end of each experiment. At the start, 50 mL samples were collected from the three effluents (E1E, E2E, and E3E). At the end of each experiment, four samples were taken from each culture vessel; for this procedure, 50 mL were collected by pipetting separately from the upper and middle layers, without mixing them. For the bottom (zeolite) layer, an equivalent of 50 ml was estimated based on the total effluent volume (1.780 L) and zeolite weight (271 g), resulting in 7.5 g of zeolites. These were rinsed with 10 ml of a MgSO₄·7 H₂O (10 mM) and Tween 80 (2000:1 v/v) solution to detach biofilm. After separate sampling, the contents were mixed thoroughly, and a final 50 ml composite sample was taken. All samples were filtered through sterile 0.22 μm cellulose nitrate membranes (Sartorius); filtrates were reserved for nutrient analysis. Filters were weighed before and after filtration to determine biomass, then stored at − 20 °C.Biomass and nutrient analysisWet biomass yield was calculated by summing biomass from all sampling points and subtracting the 500 mg inoculum. Nutrient levels were measured using HANNA Instruments kits with a HAN I83399 Multiparameter Photometer (HANNA Instruments, Germany): PO₄³⁻ (kit HI 93713-01), and NO₃⁻/NH₄⁺ (kit HI 93767 A-50), reported in mg L⁻¹.16 S/18S rRNA gene metagenomic sequencingNucleic acids were extracted from membranes using the kit described in Sect. 5.2, with duplicates pooled. PCR, quality control, amplicon library preparation, and sequencing were performed by Novogene CO using Illumina PE250 (30 K tags/sample). The bacterial 16 S rRNA V3–V4 region was amplified with primers 341 F/806R90, and the eukaryotic 18 S rRNA V4 region with primers 528 F/706R91. Reads were demultiplexed, barcodes/primers removed, and merged with FLASH92. Quality filtering followed QIIME 293; chimeras were removed using UCHIME. OTUs were clustered at 97% similarity via UPARSE94 Taxonomic classification used Mothur (archaea/bacteria) and RDP (eukaryotes) with the SILVA database v138.195.Diversity, statistical analysis, and visual representation of taxaTo reduce experimental error and ensure comparability, OTU abundances were normalized to the sample with the fewest sequences. Alpha diversity was assessed using Chao-1, Shannon_H, Evenness e^H/S, and Dominance_D indices. Beta diversity was analyzed via SIMPER, PCoA, and UPGMA clustering using Bray–Curtis and Kulczynski distances. Analyses were done in PAST 4.1396, and one-way ANOVA was performed in JASP v.0.19.3 (2025). OTU visualization via Venn and flower plots used EVenn97, and heatmaps were created in TBtools-II98.
Data availability
The 16 S rDNA and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (rbcL) gene sequences generated during the current study are available in GenBank database with the following IDs PV521982 ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/PV521982](https:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/PV521982)) and PV533918 ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/PV533918](https:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/PV533918)).The 16 S/18S rDNA amplicon datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*Trichormus variabilis* AICB 1382 strain was deposited in the AICB Culture Collection and is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
ReferencesXiao, J. et al. Integrating desertification control and wastewater treatment: novel insights from the induction of artificial biocrusts using municipal wastewater-cultivated Cyanobacterium. Sci. Total Environ. 955, 177049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177049 (2024).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Haraguchi, Y. & Shimizu, T. Crop cultivation without nitrogen fertiliser using nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterial extracts for low environmental impact. Sci. Rep. 15, 18365. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-01741-5 (2025).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Kumar, R., Singh, S. & Sharma, R. C. Application of WQI for assessment of water quality of high altitude lake Dodi Tal, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Sustain. Water Resour. Manage. 5, 1033–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-018-0281-1 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Bisht, N., Chauhan, P.S. Excessive and disproportionate use of chemicals cause soil contamination and nutritional stress in Soil Contamination-Threats and Sustainable Solutions. (eds. Larramendy, M.L., Soloneski, S.) 1–10 (IntechOpen, 2020).Sánchez-Quintero, Á., Fernandes, S. C. M. & Beigbeder, J. B. Overview of microalgae and cyanobacteria-based biostimulants produced from wastewater and CO2 streams towards sustainable agriculture: A review. Microbiol. Res. 277, 127505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2023.127505 (2023).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Moore, A. W. Azolla: biology and agronomic significance. Bot. Rev. 35, 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859886 (1969).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Yadav, P. et al. Mechanisms of stress tolerance in cyanobacteria under extreme conditions. Stresses 2, 531–549. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2040036 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Ahmad, I. Z. The usage of cyanobacteria in wastewater treatment: prospects and limitations. LAM 75, 718–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.13587 (2022).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kar, J. et al. Revisiting the role of cyanobacteria-derived metabolites as antimicrobial agent: A 21st century perspective. Front. Microbiol. 13, 1034471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1034471 (2022).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ferreira, A. et al. Biostimulant and biopesticide potential of microalgae growing in piggery wastewater. Environ. Adv. 4, 100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envadv.2021.100062 (2021).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Bellver, M., Díez-Montero, R., Escol`a Casas, M., Matamoros, V. & Ferrer, I. Phycobiliprotein recovery coupled to the tertiary treatment of wastewater in semi-continuous photobioreactors. Tracking contaminants of emerging concern. Bioresour Technol. 384, 129287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129287 (2023).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bhasin, A., Hussain, A. S. & Simsek, H. Biodegradability and bioavailability of dissolved substances in aquaculture effluent: performance of Indigenous bacteria, cyanobacteria, and green microalgae. Environ. Pollut. 345, 123468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123468 (2024).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Nishanth, S. et al., Cyanobacterial extracellular polymeric substances (EPS): Biosynthesis and their potential applications in Microbial and Natural Macromolecules. (eds. Das, S., Dash, H.R.) 349–369 (Academic Press, 2021).Ramanan, R., Kim, B. H., Cho, D. H., Oh, H. M. & Kim, H. S. Algae–bacteria interactions: evolution, ecology and emerging applications. Biotechnol. Adv. 34, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.12.003 (2015).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Fang, Y., Lin, G., Liu, Y. & Zhang, J. Advanced treatment of antibiotic-polluted wastewater by a consortium composed of bacteria and mixed cyanobacteria. Environ. Pollut. 344, 123293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123293 (2024).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Abed, R. M. M. Interaction between cyanobacteria and aerobic heterotrophic bacteria in the degradation of hydrocarbons. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 64, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2009.10.008 (2010).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Munoz, R. & Guieysse, B. Algal–bacterial processes for the treatment of hazardous contaminants: a review. Water Res. 40, 2799–2815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.06.011 (2008).Article
ADS
CAS
Google Scholar
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L. & Stensel, H.D., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. (eds. Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D.). 4th edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002).Talukder, A., Mahmud, S., Lira, S. & Aziz, M. Phycoremediation of textile industry effluent by cyanobacteria (Nostoc muscorum and Anabaena variabilis). Biores Commun. 1, 124–127 (2015).
Google Scholar
Barrer, R. M. Zeolites and Clay Minerals as Sorbents and Molecular Sieves. (Academic Press, 1978).Markou, G., Vandamme, D. & Muylaert, K. Using natural zeolite for ammonia sorption from wastewater and as nitrogen releaser for the cultivation of arthrospira platensis. Bioresour Technol. 155, 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.122 (2014).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Blanchard, G., Maunaye, M. & Martin, G. Removal of heavy metals from waters by means of natural zeolites. Water Res. 18, 1501–1507. https://doi.org/10.1021/es048482s (1984).Article
ADS
CAS
Google Scholar
Kubota, M. et al. Selective adsorption of bacterial cells onto zeolites, colloids surf. B Biointerfaces. 64, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2008.01.012 (2008).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Emami Moghaddam, S. A., Harun, R., Mokhtar, M. N. & Zakaria, R. Potential of zeolite and algae in biomass immobilization. Biomed. Res. Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6563196 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Teban-Man, A. et al. Municipal wastewaters carry important carbapenemase genes independent of hospital input and can mirror clinical resistance patterns. Microbiol. Spectr. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02711-21 (2022).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Weisse, L., Héchard, Y., Moumen, B. & Delafont, V. Here, there and everywhere: ecology and biology of the dependentiae phylum. Environ. Microbiol. 25, 597–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.16307 (2023).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Castelle, C. J. et al. Biosynthetic capacity, metabolic variety and unusual biology in the CPR and DPANN radiations. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0076-2 (2018).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Malfertheiner, L., Martínez-Pérez, C., Zhao, Z., Herndl, G. J. & Baltar, F. Phylogeny and metabolic potential of the candidate phylum SAR324. Biology (Basel). 11, 599. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11040599 (2022).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Maritz, J. M., Eyck, T., Alter, T. A., Carlton, J. M. & E.S. & Patterns of protist diversity associated with Raw sewage in new York City. ISME J. 13, 2750–2763. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0467-z (2019).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Qu, F., Wang, Y., Yu, D. & Chen, N. High-frequency monitoring reveals phytoplankton succession patterns and the role of cryptophyte in a subtropical river reservoir. Algal Res. 82, 103680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2024.103680 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Cavalier-Smith, T. & Chao, E. E. Protalveolate phylogeny and systematics and the origins of sporozoa and dinoflagellates (phylum myzozoa nom. Nov). Eur. J. Protistol. 40, 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2004.01.002 (2004).Article
Google Scholar
Cavalier-Smith, T. & Scoble, J. M. Phylogeny of heterokonta: Incisomonas marina, a uniciliate gliding opalozoan related to solenicola (Nanomonadea), and evidence that actinophryida evolved from raphidophytes. Eur. J. Protistol. 49, 328–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2012.09.002 (2012).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Beakes, G. W. & Thines, M. In Hyphochytriomycota and Oomycota in Handbook of the Protists (eds Archibald, J. M. et al.) 435–505 (Springer, 2017).Chapter
Google Scholar
Zhang, L. et al. Immediate and legacy effects of snow exclusion on soil fungal diversity and community composition. Ecosyst. 8, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-021-00299-8 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Gast, R. J. Centrohelida and other Heliozoan-like protists Handbook of the Protists. (eds. Archibald, J.M., Simpson, G.B.A. & Slamovits, C.H.) 955–971 (Springer, 2017). (2017).Kostygov, A. Y. et al. Euglenozoa: taxonomy, diversity and ecology, symbioses and viruses. Open. Biol. 11, 200407. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.200407 (2021).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Jia, Y. et al. Sequencing introduced false positive rare taxa lead to biased microbial community diversity, assembly, and interaction interpretation in amplicon studies. Environ. Microbiome. 17, 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-022-00436-y (2022).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sparrow, F. K. Aquatic Phycomyete. (2nd ed.) (ed. Arbor, A.) 42–119 (The University of Michigan Press, 1960).Wey-Fabrizius, A. R., Podsiadlowski, L., Herlyn, H. & Hankeln, T. Platyzoan mitochondrial genomes. Mol. Phylogenet Evol. 69, 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2012.12.015 (2013).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tsui, C. K. et al. Labyrinthulomycetes phylogeny and its implications for the evolutionary loss of chloroplasts and gain of ectoplasmic gliding. Mol. Phylogenet Evol. 50, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.09.02 (2009).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Yabuki, A., Ishida, K. & Cavalier-Smith, T. Rigifila Ramosa n. gen., n. sp., a filose apusozoan with a distinctive pellicle, is related to micronuclearia. Protist 164, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2012.04.005 (2013).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Naranjo-Ortiz, M. A. & Gabaldón, T. Fungal evolution: diversity, taxonomy, and phylogeny of the fungi. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 94, 2101–2137. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12550 (2019).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
McConnaughey, M. In Physical chemical properties of Fungi in Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences (ed. Caplan, M. J.) 1–4 (Elsevier, 2014).
Google Scholar
Bonfante, P. & Venice, F. Mucoromycota: going to the roots of plant-interacting fungi. Fungal Biol. Rev. 34, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2019.12.003 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Toret, C., Picco, A., Boiero-Sanders, M., Michelot, A. & Kaksonen, M. The cellular slime mold fonticula Alba forms a dynamic, multicellular collective while feeding on bacteria. Curr. Biol. 32, 1961–1973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.03.018 (2022).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Cavalier-Smith, T. Early evolution of eukaryote feeding modes, cell structural diversity, and classification of the protozoan phyla Loukozoa, Sulcozoa, and choanozoa. Eur. J. Protistol. 49, 115–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2012.06.001 (2013).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Zettler, N. T., O’Kelly, C. & Sogin, M. The Nucleariid amoebae: more protists at the animal-fungal boundary. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 48, 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2001.tb00317.x (2001).Article
Google Scholar
Cuellar-Bermudez, S. P. et al. Nutrients utilization and contaminants removal. A review of two approaches of algae and cyanobacteria in wastewater. Algal Res. 24, 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.08.018 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Simeunović, J., Bešlin, K., Svirčev, Z., Kovač, B. D. & Babić, O. Impact of nitrogen and drought on phycobiliprotein content in terrestrial cyanobacterial strains. J. Appl. Phycol. 25, 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-012-9894-1 (2012).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Fernandes, F. A. et al. Using the von Bertalanffy model to describe ammonia volatilization from conventional and stabilized nitrogen fertilizers in coffee crop system. Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant. Anal. 55, 1837–1848. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2024.2330628 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Collier, L. J., Lovindeer, R., Xi, Y., Radway, C. J. & Armstrong, A. R. Differences in growth and physiology of marine Synechococcus (Cyanobacteria) on nitrate versus ammonium are not determined solely by nitrogen source redox state. J. Phycol. 48, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2011.01100.x (2012).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
El-Sheekh, M. M., El-Shouny, W. A., Osman, M. E. & El-Gammal, E. Treatment of sewage and industrial wastewater effluents by the cyanobacteria Nostoc muscorum and Anabaena subcylinderica. J. Water Chem. Technol. 36, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1063455X14040079 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Mallick, N. & Rai, L. C. Removal of inorganic ions from wastewater by immobilized microalgae. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 10, 439–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144469 (1994).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Deb, D., Mallick, N. & Bhadoria, P. B. S. A waste-to-wealth initiative exploiting the potential of Anabaena variabilis for designing an integrated biorefinery. Sci. Rep. 12, 9478. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13244-8 (2022).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Pouliot, Y., Buelna, G., Racine, C. & de la Noüe, J. Culture of cyanobacteria for tertiary wastewater treatment and biomass production. Biol. Wastes. 29, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7483(89)90089-X (1989).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Lincoln, E. P., Wilkie, A. C. & French, B. T. Cyanobacterial process for renovating dairy wastewater. Biomass Bioenergy. 10, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(95)00055-0 (1996).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Markou, G., Chatzipavlidis, I. & Georgakakis, D. Cultivation of arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis in olive-oil mill wastewater treated with sodium hypochlorite. Bioresour Technol. 112, 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.098 (2012).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Salbitani, G. & Carfagna, S. Ammonium utilization in microalgae: A sustainable method for wastewater treatment. Sustainability 13, 956. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020956 (2021).Article
ADS
CAS
Google Scholar
Morillas-España, A. et al. Potential of the cyanobacteria Anabaena sp. and Dolichospermum sp. for being produced using wastewater or pig slurry: validation using pilot-scale raceway reactors. Algal Res. 60, 102517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102517 (2001).Article
Google Scholar
Alsulaili, A., Al-Buloushi, B. Y. & Hamoda, M. F. Seasonal variation pattern of physicochemical and microbial parameters in a wastewater treatment plant. Desalin. Water Treat. 208, 244–260. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2020.26461 (2020).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Johnston, J. & Behrens, S. Seasonal dynamics of the activated sludge microbiome in sequencing batch reactors, assessed using 16S rRNA transcript amplicon sequencing. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00597-20 (2020).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Gao, L. et al. Effects of different nitrogen/phosphorus ratios on the growth and metabolism of microalgae scenedesmus obliquus cultured in the mixed wastewater from primary settling tank and sludge thickener. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 170, 824–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.12.059 (2023).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Qian, W. et al. Effect of N/P ratio on attached microalgae growth and the differentiated metabolism along the depth of biofilm. Environ. Res. 240 240, 117428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117428 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Uthpala Pushpakumara, B. L. D., Tandon, K., Willis, A. & Verbruggen, H. Unravelling microalgal-bacterial interactions in aquatic ecosystems through 16S rRNA gene-based co-occurrence networks. Sci. Rep. 13, 2743. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27816-9 (2023).Article
ADS
CAS
Google Scholar
Vallina, S. M., Cermeno, P., Dutkiewicz, S., Loreau, M. & Montoya, J. M. Phytoplankton functional diversity increases ecosystem productivity and stability. Ecol. Model. 361, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.06.020 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Berry, D. & Widder, S. Deciphering microbial interactions and detecting keystone species with co-occurrence networks. Front. Microbiol. 5, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00219 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Vigneron, A. et al. Multiple strategies for light-harvesting, photoprotection, and carbon flow in high latitude microbial Mats. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2881. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02881 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Mujakić, I. et al. Multi-environment ecogenomics analysis of the cosmopolitan phylum Gemmatimonadota. Microbiol. Spectr. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01112-23 (2023).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Fang, Y. et al. Casting light on the adaptation mechanisms and evolutionary history of the widespread Sumerlaeota. mBio 12, e00350-2. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00350-21 (2021).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Sheremet, A. et al. Ecological and genomic analyses of candidate phylum WPS-2 bacteria in an unvegetated soil. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 3143–3157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15054 (2020).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Martinez-Garcia, M. et al. Capturing single cell genomes of active polysaccharide degraders: an unexpected contribution of verrucomicrobia. PLoS ONE. 7, e35314. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035314 (2012).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bellini, E. et al. Trichormus variabilis (Cyanobacteria) biomass: from the nutraceutical products to novel EPS-cell/protein carrier systems. Mar. Drugs. 16, 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/md16090298 (2018).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Yücer, D. T., Beyatlı, Y. & Pabuçcu, K. The antiproliferative and antimicrobial effects of cultivated Anabaena circinalis rabenhorts ex Bornet and Flahault and Nostoc entophytum Bornet and Flahault. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 17, 1571–1577. https://doi.org/10.4314/tjpr.v17i8.15 (2018).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Pesaro, M. & Widmer, F. Identification of novel crenarchaeota and Euryarchaeota clusters associated with different depth layers of a forest soil. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 42, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00998.x (2002).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Stingl, U., Radek, R., Yang, H. & Brune, A. Endomicrobia: cytoplasmic symbionts of termite gut protozoa form a separate phylum of prokaryotes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 1473–1479. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.3.1473-1479.2005 (2005).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Matheus Carnevali, P. B. et al. Hydrogen-based metabolism as an ancestral trait in lineages sibling to the cyanobacteria. Nat. Commun. 10, 463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08246-y (2019).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Murphy, C. L. et al. Genomic characterization of three novel Desulfobacterota classes expand the metabolic and phylogenetic diversity of the phylum. Environ. Microbiol. 23, 4326–4343. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15614 (2021).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Wittmers, F. et al. Non-photosynthetic lineages sibling to Cyanobacteria associate with eukaryotes in the open ocean. Curr. Biol. 34, R1133–R1134. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2001.16 (2024).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Neumann, A. P., McCormick, C. A. & Suen, G. Fibrobacter communities in the Gastrointestinal tracts of diverse hindgut-fermenting herbivores are distinct from those of the rumen. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 3768–3783. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13878 (2017).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Wösten, M. M. Regulation of respiratory pathways in campylobacterota: A review. Front. Microbiol. 10, 424488. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01719 (2019). (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Bullman, S. et al. Analysis of Fusobacterium persistence and antibiotic response in colorectal cancer. Science 358, 1443–1448 (2017). https://doi.org/aal5240Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Jumas-Bilak, E. et al. Jonquetella anthropi gen. nov., sp. nov., the first member of the candidate phylum ‘Synergistetes’ isolated from man. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 57, 2743–2748. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.65213-0 (2007).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Wolf, M., Müller, T., Dandekar, T. & Pollack, J. D. Phylogeny of firmicutes with special reference to Mycoplasma (Mollicutes) as inferred from phosphoglycerate kinase amino acid sequence data. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. (Comparative Study). 54, 871–875. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.02868-0 (2004).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Margulis, L., Ashen, J. B., Solé, M. & Guerrero, R. Composite, large spirochetes from microbial mats: spirochete structure reviews. PNAS 90, 6966–6970. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.90.15.6966 (1993).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Dragoș, N., Péterfi, L.Ș., Momeu, L. & Popescu, C. An introduction to the Algae and the Culture Collection of Algae at the Institute of Biological Research Cluj-Napoca. 1st edition (Cluj University Press, 1997).Stanier, R. Y., Kunisawa, R., Mandel, M. & Cohen-Bazire, G. Purification and properties of unicellular blue-green algae (order Chroococcales). Bacteriol. Rev. 35, 171–205. https://doi.org/10.1128/br.35.2.171-205.1971 (1971).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Rudi, K., Skulberg, O. M. & Jakobsen, K. S. Evolution of cyanobacteria by exchange of genetic material among phyletically related strains. J. Bacteriol. 180, 3453–3461. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.180.13.3453-3461.1998 (1998).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Frank, J. A. et al. Critical evaluation of two primers commonly used for amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 2461–2470. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02272-07 (2008).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Benson, D. A. et al. GenBank NAR 41, D36–D42 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1195. (2013).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Stibal, M. et al. Different bulk and active bacterial communities in cryoconite from the margin and interior of the Greenland ice sheet. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 7, 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12246 (2015).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Cheung, M. K., Au, C. H., Chu, K. H., Kwan, H. S. & Wong, C. K. Composition and genetic diversity of picoeukaryotes in subtropical coastal waters as revealed by 454 pyrosequencing. ISME J. 4, 1053–1059. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2010.26 (2010).Article
ADS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Magoč, T., Salzberg, S. L. & FLASH Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27, 2957–2963. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 (2011).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible Microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9 (2019).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Edgar, R. C. UNOISE2: improved error-correction for illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. Preprint at. https://doi.org/10.1101/081257 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. NAR 41, D590–D596. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219 (2013).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., Ryan, P. D. & PAST Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electronica. 4, 1–9 (2001). http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm
Google Scholar
Mei, Y., Tong, C., Yong-Xin, L. & Luqi, H. Visualizing set relationships: EVenn’s comprehensive approach to Venn diagrams. Imeta https://doi.org/10.1002/imt2.184 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Chen, C. et al. TBtools-II: A one for all, all for one bioinformatics platform for biological big-data mining. Mol. Plant. 16, 1733–1742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2023.09.010 (2023).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Download referencesAcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge Compania de Apă Someș S.A. for their support in providing the effluent from the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant.FundingThis work was supported by the Romanian Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization through Nucleu Program under 2022–2027 National Research, Development and Innovation Plan [PN23020401, contract no. 7 N/03.01.2023]; Romanian Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization [PN-III-P2-2.1-PED-2021, contract 653/2022]; National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) [760102/23.05.2023].Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsInstitute of Biological Research Cluj, National Institute of Research and Development for Biological Sciences, 48 Republicii Street, 400015, Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaAdriana Hegedűs, Răzvan Vințan, Maria Nicoară & Bogdan DrugăFaculty of Biology and Geology, “Babeş-Bolyai“ University, 5-7 Clinicilor St., Cluj-Napoca, 400006, RomaniaRăzvan VințanDoctoral School of Integrative Biology, Faculty of Biology and Geology, “Babeş-Bolyai“ University, 44 Republicii Street, Cluj-Napoca, 400015, RomaniaMaria NicoarăAuthorsAdriana HegedűsView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarRăzvan VințanView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarMaria NicoarăView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarBogdan DrugăView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarContributionsAdriana Hegedűs: Writing—original draft, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis. Răzvan Vințan: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. Maria Nicoară: Methodology, Investigations.Bogdan Drugă: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing—review & editing, Supervision; Validation.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to
Bogdan Drugă.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional informationPublisher’s noteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Supplementary InformationBelow is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary Material 1Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleHegedűs, A., Vințan, R., Nicoară, M. et al. Synergistic role of Trichormus variabilis and zeolites in three-layer culturing system for modulating the wastewater effluent community.
Sci Rep 15, 44176 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27997-5Download citationReceived: 16 September 2025Accepted: 06 November 2025Published: 19 December 2025Version of record: 19 December 2025DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27997-5Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy shareable link to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Keywords
Trichormus variabilis
ZeolitesNutrientsBiomassProkaryotic communityEukaryotic community More
