Antarctic Microorganisms as Indicators of Change
31 Jul 2006 - Interviews, Logistics
Microscope
© Annick wilmotte / Annick wilmotte
SciencePoles interviewed in June 2006 Dr Annick Wilmotte, a specialist in Antarctic micro-organisms at Belgium's Liège University. Her work on cyanobacteria, found in abundance in Antarctic surface lakes, has stimulated considerable scientific and commercial interest.
Dr Wilmotte is currently co-Leader of MERGE (Microbiological and Ecological Responses to Global Environmental Changes in Polar Regions), an International Polar Year 2007-2008 project which will look at a slice of polar life from microbes up to small plants.
MERGE's predecessor, MICROMAT, was primarily concerned with micro-organisms?
MICROMAT (Biodiversity of Microbial Mats in Antarctic Lakes) was a European funded project running from 1998 to 2000. It was the first project of its kind, where all micro-organisms present in the same Antarctic lake sample were studied by different taxonomy groups. Whereas previously biologists worked in isolation and on different samples, MICROMAT involved biologists from several specialisations using a range of methodologies on the same sample to explore its diversity.
Base camp
© Annick wilmotte / Annick wilmotte
The main result was that we found enormous biodiversity in the mats (or 'bio-films') formed by micro-organisms at the bottom of Antarctic lakes.. We also discovered that there was probably a degree of endemism among certain micro-organisms in Antarctic lakes.
Endemic organisms are fascinating because they are unique: they have evolved individually and specifically in particular environments. This was (and continues to be) quite controversial in scientific circles. It was previously believed that there could not be endemism in easily dispersed micro-organisms, although it is quite common for plants and animals.
So how does MERGE build on the work of MICROMAT?
MERGE is a much bigger project than MICROMAT, and involves both polar regions. As well as micro-organisms, it concerns mosses, lichens, fungi, and even some Arctic plants. For example, in the Arctic, one Canadian team wants to look at the micro-organisms that are living around plant roots.
MERGE also wants to look at biodiversity from a descriptive and functional point of view. This includes distribution and dispersion, why organisms live where they do and how they survive the harsh polar habitats.
In addition, MERGE will also look at past diversity going back tens of thousands of years. This is possible because microbes leave a record in the sediment or in the ice, such as diatoms' silicium, that can be observed through microscopy. This enables us to reconstruct past ecology and to study the effects of environmental change over these timescales.
Finally, MERGE is also interested in glacial ecosystems, and in particular in cryoconites. These are water expanses that form on the glacier surface where there is an accumulation of dark (low albedo), heat-absorbing materials such as dust and rocks. Cryoconites vary hugely in size, from tiny little pools to mini-lakes, and become microcosms of biodiversity. They are sealed from the external world as they freeze in winter, but melt again in summer and become thriving micro-organic communities that might have a profound and unexplored influence on the carbon cycles. Colleagues have been considering using robots and drones to study and collect further samples from these cryoconites which can often lie in very dangerous and inaccessible crevasse-filled areas.
In 2007-2008, the International Polar Year (IPY) will catalyse massive international research in the Polar Regions. How will MERGE be involved in the IPY?
When the IPY was announced a couple of years ago, the scientific community was invited to submit expressions of intent (EoIs). My MICROMAT Belgian colleagues and I did this, together with other microbiologists from England, Australia, Canada, Spain, France, Italy, Argentina and Poland. Following feedback from the IPY Joint Committee encouraging linking with other similar expressions of intent, Prof. Hugo Decleir (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) visited the National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR) of Japan. After discussions with Professor Takeshi Naganuma (University of Hiroshima) about the potential for collaborating on polar microbiology, two coalitions of scientists "merged" to create MERGE, with Professor Naganuma and I as co-leaders.
I should say that what is particularly pleasing is that MERGE now also includes participation from countries not previously active on polar research, such as Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Egypt. This is very much in the spirit of the IPY and fulfils one of its principles which is to involve as many countries as possible.
Will MERGE continue beyond the IPY?
This will largely depend on funding. All partners are applying in their own country, and such funding might last for different periods of time. For example, here in Belgium our funding schemes are usually for four years. But MERGE is also very involved in sharing protocols and samples, making much more information on one biotope available to all research partners than would be the case without such collaboration. We certainly hope this will continue beyond MERGE and become its legacy.
In this context, what are your desired outcomes for MERGE?
Again, funding is important here, but certainly we would like to produce a kind of synthesis and answers about why organisms live in such and such a place, how they interact with their particular polar environment, and how they are affected by environmental change.
Have pharmaceutical companies had an interest in your microbial research?
MICROMAT was a biotechnology project within the EC framework and we had three industrial partners, two for pharmaceutical compounds, and one for enzymes. In the case of pharmaceutical compounds, they were screening bacteria and fungi for antibiotic-producing strains and both companies were very satisfied with the results. The percentage of bioactivity from Antarctic bacteria was as good as that coming from other environments.
Within MERGE, however, strains will not be screened other than for unique functions or characteristics occurring in the polar habitat. They will be made available to culture collections for other screenings afterwards. This is, if you like, one kind of legacy from MERGE.
Sample
© Annick Wilmotte/ Annick Wilmotte
Bio-prospecting remains controversial and Antarctic Treaty Consultative Members still discuss this. How do you separate science from pharmaceutical interests?
If prospecting respects all environmental prerogatives, protections and permits, I have no problem with somebody taking a little chip of rock or other microbial samples. Indeed, the impact of such activities is normally very small.
With regard to profits and other financial issues surrounding this question, it seems obvious to me that if money is made as a result of bio-prospecting in Antarctica, then some of it should be returned to the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR). After all, SCAR plays a key role in safeguarding the continent, as well as in coordinating the science that is carried out there.
By: Jean de Pomereu
