Skip to main content
Download PDF

Engineered plastic-associated bacteria for biodegradation and bioremediation

Biotechnology for the Environment volume 1, Article number: 7 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

The global plastic waste crisis has triggered the development of novel methods for removal of recalcitrant polymers from the environment. Biotechnological approaches have received particular attention due to their potential for enabling sustainable, low-intensity bioprocesses which could also be interfaced with microbial upcycling pathways to support the emerging circular bioeconomy. However, low biodegradation efficiency of solid plastic materials remains a bottleneck, especially at mesophilic conditions required for one-pot degradation and upcycling. A promising strategy used in nature to address this is localisation of plastic-degrading microbes to the plastic surface via biofilm-mediated surface association. This review highlights progress and opportunities in leveraging these naturally occurring mechanisms of biofilm formation and other cell-surface adhesion biotechnologies to co-localise engineered cells to plastic surfaces. We further discuss examples of combining these approaches with extracellular expression of plastic-degrading enzymes to accelerate plastic degradation. Additionally, we review this topic in the context of nano- and microplastics bioremediation and their removal from wastewater and finally propose future research directions for this nascent field.

Introduction

Biocatalysis holds vast potential to address the plastic waste crisis [1,2,3,4] through depolymerisation of traditionally recalcitrant materials under low process-intensity conditions [5,6,7]. A surge in research focusing on plastic biodegradation over the past decade is providing an expanding toolbox of biocatalysts for the degradation of many synthetic polymers, in particular hydrolysable plastics such as poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) [8,9,10,11,12], poly(lactic acid) (PLA) [13,14,15] and poly(urethanes) [16, 17]. Additionally, the emerging field of plastic bio-upcycling has demonstrated that plastic degradation products can serve as feedstocks for the production of value-added, second-generation chemical products which could enable a more sustainable and circular plastics economy [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26].

A challenge inherent to plastic degradation is the heterogeneity of reaction mixtures. Unlike homogenous biocatalytic processes in which the substrate and enzyme are both solvated in the aqueous phase, the enzymatic degradation of plastics is heterogeneous under mesophilic conditions. Thus enzyme-plastic reactions are constrained to the interface between the solid plastic surface and the liquid phase. Therefore, two important strategies to improve plastic biodegradation efficiency are to localise the biocatalyst to the phase interface and to increase the surface area of the plastic substrate. Indeed, one of the most promising enzyme candidates for plastic degradation from nature, PETase from Ideonella sakaiensis (IsPETase) [10], has a flat hydrophobic surface surrounding the substrate binding cleft. This has been proposed to aid the co-localisation of the enzyme to the PET surface and is thought to contribute to the remarkable efficiency of this enzyme [27, 28].

At the cellular level, microorganisms address this challenge in nature by colonising solid, abiotic surfaces as biofilms. A biofilm is a complex and dynamic three-dimensional assemblage of microorganisms encapsulated within an extracellular polymeric matrix associated with a solid surface. Biofilm formation is controlled by a vastly complex regulatory network in response to environmental stressors, including reactive oxygen species, antibiotics, heat and pH fluctuations [29,30,31]. Encapsulation within the biofilm matrix provides microbial populations with enhanced stability towards these high-stress conditions. As such, biofilms are frequently associated with infection, pathogenicity and contamination in biomedical settings and have been the focus of intensive study with regards to their prevention and removal. However, these properties also make controlled or engineered, non-pathogenic biofilms an attractive tool for biotechnological applications, perhaps most notably in wastewater treatment and bioremediation [32,33,34]. Biofilms have also been exploited to improve biocatalyst performance via the expression of enzymes in biofilm-associated cells. Enzymes expressed in these systems have have demonstrated increased longevity and stability compared to purified enzymes, which has been attributed to rapid enzyme regeneration [35, 36].

Whilst mechanisms and regulation of biofilm formation vary across species, and even between different strains within the same species, the universal first step of biofilm formation is adhesion [37,38,39,40]. Depending upon the context of the biofilm, this may be adhesion to other cells or abiotic surfaces such as plastics. In the latter stages of biofilm development, a protective extracellular polymeric matrix is formed, comprising oligosaccharides, DNA and proteins, collectively known as extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). The study of these biofilm-formation mechanisms of adhesion and EPS production has provided a useful starting point for the rational control and engineering of microbial biofilms for biotechnological application. In particular, research efforts have focused on the use of surface-anchored filamentous proteins such as curli [41], antigen-43 (Ag43), fimbriae and pili, and EPS [38] to control biofilm formation on a range of abiotic surfaces.

In this review, we discuss examples of this in the context of plastic biodegradation and bioremediation. In particular, bioengineering strategies to control microbial adhesion to and interaction with hydrophobic plastic surfaces using Ag43, curli and EPS (Fig. 1) are explored. We also discuss examples of biotechnologies which leverage other naturally occurring methods of adhesion to hydrophobic surfaces, such as hydrophobins and adhesins. Naturally occurring biofilms on plastic surfaces and laboratory propagation thereof are discussed in depth elsewhere [42,43,44,45] and are therefore out of scope of this review. We first review engineering strategies for enhanced bacterial adhesion to bulk plastic, followed by a discussion of progress in the field of engineering surface-associated bacteria for plastic depolymerisation through extracellular expression of degradative enzymes. We next review progress in the field of engineering microbial systems for the encapsulation and bioremediation of microplastics and finally propose future directions and opportunities in this emerging field. Whilst other recent reviews include examples of bacterial adhesion to plastic surfaces using engineered bacteria [2, 46, 47] and biocatalyst engineering to affinity for plastic surfaces [11], to the best of our knowledge this if the first review to focus solely on bioengineering strategies for co-localisation of microorganisms and plastic surfaces, discussed in the context of both bulk plastics and microplastics.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Examples of natural mechanisms of bacterial association with plastic surfaces in microbial biofilms which have been leveraged for addressing adhesion, encapsulation or degradation of plastic. A Curli fibre. B Antigen-43 (Ag43). C Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) surrounding microbial cells associated with a macroscopic plastic surface (left) or microplastics (right)

Full size image

Engineered microbes for enhanced plastic adhesion

Characterisation of bacterial adhesion mechanisms has prompted further study into the rational design and optimisation of methods to anchor microbial cells to plastic surfaces examples of which are summarised in Table 1. For example, Leech and co-workers demonstrated a ~ 7-fold increase in biomass adhesion to poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE), compared to the control strain BL21, by PHL644. PHL644 is a K-12 derivative strain of Escherichia coli which overexpresses the positive regulator of the curli operon, CsgD, via inclusion of the ompR234 allele. This results in high levels of curli production under standard cultivation conditions [48]. This resulted in increased biofilm formation and therefore increased cellular adhesion ability. Biofilm formation on plastic surfaces was also found to loosely correlate with surface hydrophobicity, which is known to be one of the key surface property determinants of biofilm formation [48, 49].

Table 1 Summary of engineering strategies for enhanced microbial adhesion to plastic surfaces
Full size table

Antigen-43 (Ag43) has also been leveraged as a tool for adhering microbial cells to plastic surfaces. For example, overexpression of the E. coli K-12 flu gene, which encodes the multi-domain Ag43 protein (Fig. 1B), using a light-inducible promoter enabled high-resolution cell patterning on polystyrene surfaces [50]. A positive correlation between illumination intensity and biomass adhesion was observed, and biomass adhesion also increased linearly with illumination time up to 8 h. This tightly controlled system enabled generation of a ‘biofilm lithography’ system, whereby microbial adhesion to the surface could be controlled by application of a photomask. Ag43 expression, and therefore bacterial adhesion to abiotic surfaces, can also be modulated via engineering the redox state of the cellular redox sensor OxyR. Schembri and co-workers used mutants of OxyR locked into either the reduced (OxyRred) or oxidised (OxyRox) state to modulate flu gene expression. Overexpression of OxyRox resulted in a ~ 2-fold increase in biomass adhesion to a polystyrene surface in comparison to OxyRWT and OxyRred [51]. Whilst these data were obtained as part of a wider study into the factors regulating flu gene expression, it demonstrates the potential for targeting the biofilm regulatory network to modulate bacterial adhesion to plastic surfaces.

A further example of engineering E. coli to adhere to solid surfaces was inspired by the mechanism of attachment of mussels to inorganic and organic surfaces in nature. This is modulated by a polypeptide comprising repeating units of 3,4-dihydroxyl-L-phenylalanine (DOPA) and lysine, and DOPA and histidine [53]. In this study, the authors used the outer membrane protein W (OmpW) as the cell membrane anchor in combination with the perhydrolase from Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PerPA) as a functional spacer protein, from which they displayed a mussel protein-inspired catecholamine cargo. A tyrosinase was then used to convert the Tyr side chain to DOPA via meta-hydroxylation [52]. The resultant cells showed adherence to all abiotic surfaces tested (Au, Si, Ti, PET, poly(urethane) (PU) and poly (dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS)). Whilst PET and PDMS showed a similar level of adhesion (~ 15,000 cells/mm2), cells had poorer adhesion to PU (~ 6500 cells/mm2). Adhesion to PET and PU was hypothesised to be due to π-π stacking interactions between the polymer chain and catechol moiety, whereas adhesion to PDMS was theorised to be due to electrostatic interactions between surface oxidised PDMS and the amine group of catecholamine. By further engineering of the cells to co-display a degradative enzyme, this nature-inspired approach to cellular adhesion could be a useful method to co-localise functional biomass and plastic surfaces. It is noteworthy that the plastic surface itself may also be modified to promote biofilm formation, although this is out of scope of the present review [49, 54].

Engineered microbes for bulk plastic adhesion and degradation

Methods to adhere biomass to abiotic surfaces enable researchers to study fundamental interactions of microbes with plastic surfaces. It also offers an ideal platform for the presentation of functional biomass to the plastic surface to perform a useful function, such as plastic depolymerisation and degradation. Examples of these technologies are summarised in Table 2 and described in detail below.

Table 2 Summary of engineered microorganisms for plastic degradation enhanced by surface adhesion
Full size table

Research in this field to date has largely focused on degradation of PET, in part due to a rapidly expanding toolbox of PET depolymerases which operate at mesophilic conditions close to 30 °C [8, 10, 60,61,62,63]. These biocatalysts have been successfully produced using a range of expression technologies, including cell-free protein expression [64], secretion of free enzyme into the extracellular environment [65, 66] and surface display [67, 68]. Out of these, PETase cell-surface display technologies have been successfully paired with cellular adhesion to PET surfaces to expediate depolymerisation.

For example, engineered curli fibres were shown to be an effective tool to improve the efficiency of PET degradation. Zhu et al. genetically fused lsPETase to the CsgA subunit of curli fibres in E. coli PHL628 to generate a whole-cell biocatalyst in a process they term ‘biofilm-integrated nanofiber display (BIND) strategy’ [69], in this instance generating BIND-PETase [55] (Fig. 2A). The enzymatic activity of BIND-PETase was demonstrated via hydrolysis of p-nitrophenyl butyrate, which generates a highly fluorescent product upon hydrolysis. BIND-PETase degraded 4.8% of semicrystalline PET after 7 days at 30 °C, whilst purified, cell-free PETase lost activity after 24 h. BIND-PETase was also found to degrade microplastics from water treatment plants, water bottles and egg trays [55]. This work demonstrates potential of surface-adhered engineered microbes to improve plastic degradation efficiency through improved stability and longevity, and lower biocatalyst production costs.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Examples of surface display of PET-degrading biocatalysts, lsPETase and FAST-PETase, using A engineered curli fibres, B and C co-display of hydrophobins or D co-display of adhesin proteins. CsgA-F, subunits of the curli fibre assembly; FadL, an E. coli transmembrane protein; TrHFBI/II, class I/II type hydrophobin from Trichoderma reesei; GCW51/61, anchoring proteins from Pichia pastoris; YfaL, AIDA-I family autotransporter from E. coli; cp52k and mfp-3, hydrophobic adhesins from mussels; INP, ice-nucleation protein

Full size image

The surface display of plastic-degrading enzymes has also been paired with additional heterologous proteins to improve the surface adhesion of the microbe to the plastic substrate. A key example of this is co-expression of fungal hydrophobins in the engineered host. Fungal hydrophobins are secreted amphiphilic proteins [70]. The fusion of free PET-degrading enzymes to hydrophobins or their co-expression as a second surface-displayed protein has been shown to increase plastic degradation [71]. For example, Jia et al. generated a hydrophobic cell surface display (HCSD) system in E. coli BL21(DE3). The HCSD system comprised a truncated FadL transmembrane protein as the membrane anchor, lsPETase, and a class II type hydrophobin from Trichoderma reesei (TrHFBII) connected by flexible linkers (Fig. 2B). Surface contact angle measurements showed that PET film treated with the HCSD system had decreased surface hydrophobicity compared to samples treated with cells displaying PETase or TrHFBII alone. As the hydrophobicity of PET decreases during hydrolysis, this was indicative that the co-display of TrHFBII and PETase increased the PET degradation rate [56, 72]. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) further confirmed increased PET surface modification by HCSD than PETase displayed alone. In a 7-day incubation with new media or free PETase supplemented after 92 h, the HCSD system released 52% more terephthalic acid (TA) from a sample of a commercial PET bottle compared to the free enzyme. This work showed that co-expression of hydrophobin TrHFBII was not detrimental to IsPETase activity and further, increased plastic degradation activity through increasing cellular contact with the plastic surface.

In a separate study, Chen and co-workers engineered a cell-surface display system of lsPETase using GCW51 on Pichia pastoris GS115 yeast cells [68]. This system was enhanced by the addition of a class I hydrophobin from Trichoderma reesei (TrHFBI), which was co-displayed using the transmembrane anchor protein GCW61 to improve the adsorption of the engineered cells onto to the PET surface (Fig. 2C) [57]. The addition of TrHFBI increased the hydrophobicity of the whole-cell catalyst, as shown through surface contact angle measurements and microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons (MATH) analysis. The removal of TrHFBI from the co-display system decreased the rate of production of PET degradation products mono-(2-hydroxyethyl)terephthalic acid (MHET), bis(2-hydoxyethyl)terephthalate (BHET) and TA. The co-display system was active in depolymerising high crystallinity (45%) lab-grade, low crystallinity (6.3%) lab-grade and commercial PET. The co-display system exhibited approximately 10.9% degradation of high crystallinity lab-grade PET over the course of 10 days compared to only 1.2% for PETase displayed on its own.

In a complementary strategy to hydrophobins, Hu and Chen tested two hydrophobic adhesins, cp52k from Pollicipes pollicipes and mfp-3 from mussels. These adhesins were co-displayed on the exterior of E. coli BL21(DE3) cells with FAST-PETase [73] to degrade amorphous PET (Fig. 2D). The adhesins were surface-displayed through genetic fusion to a truncated ice nucleation protein (INP) and FAST-PETase was surface displayed via fusion to the autotransporter AIDA-I [58]. The sole-display of mfp-3 exhibited a 50% increase in adhesion to the plastic compared to the control. The co-display of mfp-3 with FAST-PETase exhibited 2.3-fold higher PET degradation over 24 h compared to the free FAST-PETase and 2-fold higher than sole-display of FAST-PETase at 30 °C. Whilst the efficiency of plastic degradation in these examples cannot readily be compared due to differences in the surface area: volume ratio and degree of crystallinity of the PET used, these studies show that significant increases in PET degradation rate can be achieved through co-localising the biocatalyst and plastic surface through cellular adhesion to the plastic surface.

Finally, the ability of native bacterial biofilms to degrade plastic has been widely investigated [74, 75]. In one particular example, the study of plastic-associated biofilms resulted in the discovery of novel polyester-degrading biocatalysts. In this work, Howard and McCarthy identified potential PET-degrading enzymes from modulated biofilms using homology searches with known PET-degrading enzymes [59]. Putative polyester-degrading biocatalyst candidates were screened for polycaprolactone (PCL) degradation activity, which identified two novel PCL-hydrolysing enzymes, Dh3 and Dh5. These enzymes were also discovered to degrade PET powder with > 40% crystallinity. Dh3 and Dh5 exhibited a ~ 3-fold and ~ 9-fold increase, respectively, in the production of TA and MHET from PET, compared to the control Thc_Cut2, a well-studied cutinase with PET-hydrolysis activity [59, 76]. To concentrate these PET-degrading enzymes at the PET surface, biofilm formation was upregulated via the overproduction c-di-DMP, through plasmid-based overexpression of diguanylate cyclases DgcC and WspR. Furthermore, the authors hypothesised that the biofilm EPS decreased the rate of diffusion of Dh3 and TfCut2 away from the substrate. Both Dh3 and TfCut2 exhibited 1.2-fold improved weight reduction of PCL when expressed alongside DgcC compared to the enzymes expressed singly in E. coli. However, testing of the induced biofilm paired with enzyme secretion for PET degradation was not reported.

Engineered microbes for capture and degradation of microplastics

Whilst the examples discussed so far address microbial adhesion and degradation of macroscopic, bulk plastics, recent studies have revealed an alarming incidence of microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) in an incredibly diverse array of environments, including in marine organisms [77], soils [78], food [79], and even inside the human body [80, 81]. Microplastics (MPs) are defined as small pieces of plastic with a characteristic size ranging from 1 to 5000 µm, whilst nanoplastics are less than 1 µm [82]. A common source of anthropogenic release of MNPs into the environment is through municipal wastewater treatment (WWT) [83,84,85]. After the biological treatment step, MNPs can remain in the effluent when it is released into rivers and coastal waters (Fig. 3). Alternatively, MNPs can be captured in the sludge yielding fewer MNPs in the final effluent. This sludge is subsequently treated and then used as agricultural fertiliser, which often contains a residual level of MNPs that is distributed on the land. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop methods to remove MNPs from wastewater during the WWT process.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Theoretical use of engineered aggregated microorganisms for MP removal in WWT. AS: activated sludge

Full size image

A promising research direction to tackle microplastics (MPs) in aquatic environments is to use aggregated microbial communities such as biofilms. A desirable approach would be to treat the MPs in two main steps: (1) MP capture from the water using aggregating cells; then (2) release of MPs for recycling or, alternatively, further engineering the aggregated cells to effect MP degradation. Indeed, recent studies suggest that this may be possible using biotechnology. For example, Romero et al. used unmodified P. aeruginosa to capture polystyrene (PS) MPs and found that the cell-bound form of Psl, an EPS which facilitates aggregation in P. aeruginosa [86, 87], played an important role in cell-MP adhesion [88].

Whilst Romero and co-workers used the wild-type strain PAO1, Liu et al. [89] and Chan et al. [90] engineered the chassis organism P. aeruginosa to perform the capture and release steps. Both exploit the secondary signalling messenger c-di-GMP, which is strongly implicated in biofilm formation in the chassis organism [91]. Increased levels of c-di-GMP give rise to a more “aggregated” phenotype, typically associated with increased levels of EPS (e.g. Psl, Pel, and CdrA) [92, 93]. The two studies differ in that one employs a genetic engineering approach, whilst the other employs adaptive evolution.

In the first example, Liu et al. targeted the wsp chemosensory pathway that is inextricably linked to intracellular levels of c-di-GMP [89]. The authors engineered a wsp mutant, ΔwspF, that overexpresses c-di-GMP. The resulting biofilms could capture 90% of the PVC MPs in the media. Phosphodiesterases (PDEs) degrade intracellular c-di-GMP, which subsequently leads to biofilm dispersal. To engineer the release of the MPs, the authors integrated a PDE gene, under the control of an arabinose-inducible promoter, into the ΔwspF mutant. Therefore, upon addition of arabinose, the MPs could be recovered post-biofilm dispersal. This engineered strain was shown to capture and release MPs from seawater samples collected near a sewage outfall. In the same study, the authors also implemented a similar capture and release approach in Pseudomonas putida.

Rather than genetically engineering bacteria to capture and release MPs, Chan and co-workers evolved P. aeruginosa in the presence of PS [90]. Given that PS is toxic to bacteria, growth in the presence of PS adds an evolutionary pressure to promote mutations. After 120 generations, the authors observed the emergence of a phenotype that had a propensity to aggregate microplastics. These “microplastic aggregators” (MAGs) formed biofilms rich in matrix proteins (CdrA), and were found to capture PS, PET, and PMMA MPs with sizes 1, 5, and < 106 µm respectively. The MAGs were found to possess a mutation in the genes involved in c-di-GMP synthesis such that they expressed higher levels of c-di-GMP and produced increased amounts of the adhesion protein CdrA. Addition of the protease trypsin disrupted the biofilms and released the MPs.

These two examples highlight the potential of using engineered microbes to capture MPs from aquatic environments and then subsequently separate them from the microbial community to be recycled. This provides a promising starting point for the development of novel biotechnologies for WWT, where a number of different strategies have already been proposed to remove MPs from effluents prior to dispersal in the environment [82,83,84, 94]. An attractive option would be to engineer microbes to capture and treat the MPs in WWT through incorporating this novel biotechnology downstream of the secondary treatment step, such as during sludge treatment (Fig. 3). In this hypothetical process, influent sewage containing MPs passes through a typical activated sludge process with primary and secondary treatment stages. In the biological treatment step, the resident microbial population consume dissolved organics and pollutants in the mixed liquor. After flocculation and settling in the secondary clarifier, cleaner effluent moves to tertiary treatment. Settled sludge containing MPs is then processed in the sludge treatment stage. We propose that MP removal could be integrated with this sludge treatment step as follows: (1) the sludge containing resident-activated sludge (AS) microbes and MPs are mixed with the engineered bacteria under limited nutrient conditions to encourage plastic biodegradation and bio-assimilation of the plastic; (2) depending on the size of the MPs, the engineered bacteria capture the MPs by either trapping them in the EPS matrix or forming biofilms directly on the MP surface; (3) the biofilm-aggregated MPs are separated; and (4) proliferation of engineered bacteria under nutrient-limited conditions to enrich the culture in plastic-degrading strains (Fig. 3). Of course, this biotechnology step would have to be designed to eliminate risk of engineered microbes escaping the WWT plant into the environment. Therefore, these designer biofilms and their translational potential should only be explored with input and cooperation from stakeholders within the water sector [95].

Future perspectives

The global research’s focus on discovery (e.g. bioprospecting and metagenomic database mining) and engineering (including directed evolution and rational design) is expected to deliver an increasingly powerful suite of biocatalysts to enable plastic depolymerisation under ambient conditions. Research in this field could be further accelerated by the availability of high-throughput techniques for screening or selection of candidates with high stability to industrially relevant conditions, high kcat and recyclability. These biocatalysts could then be readily integrated into surface display or secretion methods and the microbes localised to the plastic surface using various methods, as described above. To further develop these technologies towards a useful tool for plastic bioremediation, however, we propose a number of outstanding challenges and suggested research directions. These assume prior harvesting of plastic waste from the environment via large-scale clean-up operations [96, 97], or preferably direct acquisition of plastic waste after consumer or industrial use. First, the development of low-cost, low-energy and scalable pre-treatment technologies will be critical to enabling the success of bio-based plastic degradation. This is particularly pertinent in the context of methods that depend upon the adhesion of engineered microbes to plastic surfaces, where the surface properties are critical to adhesion efficiency [37, 49, 98]. Second, the characterisation of biocatalyst longevity and regeneration within these living biofilm-type communities and the establishment of a suitable feeding regime to maximise degradation productivity and minimise process costs will further advance this technology towards application. Finally, these technologies should be developed with careful consideration to future scale-up. For example, a genetic ‘kill’ switch [99,100,101] could be engineered into the systems as a control measure to prevent biofouling and rapidly disperse biofilms at the end of the process. Physical pre-treatment of plastic waste, such as shredding, should also be considered for deployment of these technologies in large-scale bioreactors. Finally, we note a lack of standardisation of reporting plastic degradation efficiency across the literature. To further this field and enable rapid comparison of plastic-degrading technologies, we recommend a consistent ‘industry standard’ for reporting biodegradation efficiency.

Conclusions and outlook

Accumulation of recalcitrant plastic in the environment is a widely acknowledged global crisis and efficient, cost-effective and sustainable new technologies are urgently required to tackle the issue. Biotechnology holds huge potential to deliver sustainable methods to upcycle plastic waste into a range of industrially valuable second-generation products. However, a requisite first step to these processes is the degradation of the polymer into small molecules which may be re-polymerised into a pseudo- ‘virgin’ polymer, or further modified into a target chemical of interest. This review has demonstrated how this process can be expedited by leveraging natural mechanisms of cellular adhesion to abiotic surfaces, such as components of biofilm formation, hydrophobins and adhesins. These have been used to co-localise plastic-degrading enzymes to plastic surfaces, as well as a method for ‘catch and release’ of microplastics. In comparison to use of purified enzymes, engineering plastic-associated bacteria as a platform for remediation of plastic waste is low cost, offers improved biocatalyst longevity and shows increased degradation efficiency owing to localisation of the biocatalyst to the plastic surface. These early examples focusing on PET degradation are a promising starting point for this nascent technology, which could now be further explored for other plastic types and in the context of WWT.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv. 2017;3:e1700782.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Iroegbu AOC, Ray SS, Mbarane V, Bordado JC, Sardinha JP. Plastic pollution: a perspective on matters arising: challenges and opportunities. ACS Omega. 2021;6:19343–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. MacLeod M, Arp HPH, Tekman MB, Jahnke A. The global threat from plastic pollution. Science. 2021;1979(373):61–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Peng L, et al. Micro- and nano-plastics in marine environment: Source, distribution and threats — a review. Sci Total Environ. 2020;698:134254.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Singh A, et al. Techno-economic, life-cycle, and socioeconomic impact analysis of enzymatic recycling of poly(ethylene terephthalate). Joule. 2021;5:2479–503.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Atabay D, Rosentrater KA, Ghnimi S. The sustainability debate on plastics: cradle to grave life cycle assessment and techno-economical analysis of PP and PLA polymers with a “Polluter Pays Principle” perspective. Front Sustain. 2022;3:931417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Uekert T, et al. Life cycle assessment of enzymatic poly(ethylene terephthalate) recycling. Green Chem. 2022;24:6531–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hong H, et al. Discovery and rational engineering of PET hydrolase with both mesophilic and thermophilic PET hydrolase properties. Nat Commun. 2023;2023(14):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tournier V, et al. An engineered PET depolymerase to break down and recycle plastic bottles. Nature. 2020;580:216–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yoshida S, et al. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science. 2016;351:1196–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu F, et al. Current advances in the structural biology and molecular engineering of PETase. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1263996.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sui B, et al. Recent advances in the biodegradation of polyethylene terephthalate with cutinase-like enzymes. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1265139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ribitsch D, et al. A new esterase from Thermobifida halotolerans hydrolyses polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polylactic acid (PLA). Polymers (Basel). 2012;4:617–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hajighasemi M, et al. Biochemical and structural insights into enzymatic depolymerization of polylactic acid and other polyesters by microbial carboxylesterases. Biomacromol. 2016;17:2027–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Myburgh MW, Favaro L, van Zyl WH, Viljoen-Bloom M. Engineered yeast for the efficient hydrolysis of polylactic acid. Bioresour Technol. 2023;378:129008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gamerith C, et al. Improving enzymatic polyurethane hydrolysis by tuning enzyme sorption. Polym Degrad Stab. 2016;132:69–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmidt J, et al. Degradation of polyester polyurethane by bacterial polyester hydrolases. Polymers. 2017;9:65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sadler JC, Wallace S. Microbial synthesis of vanillin from waste poly(ethylene terephthalate). Green Chem. 2021;23:4665–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Valenzuela-Ortega M, Suitor JT, White MFM, Hinchcliffe T, Wallace S. Microbial upcycling of waste PET to adipic acid. ACS Cent Sci. 2023;9:2057–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Sullivan KP, et al. Mixed plastics waste valorization through tandem chemical oxidation and biological funneling. Science (1979). 2022;378:207–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tiso T, et al. Towards bio-upcycling of polyethylene terephthalate. Metab Eng. 2021;66:167–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ellis LD, et al. Chemical and biological catalysis for plastics recycling and upcycling. Nat Catal. 2021;4:539–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rabot C, et al. Polystyrene upcycling into fungal natural products and a biocontrol agent. J Am Chem Soc. 2023;145:5222–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim HT, et al. Biological valorization of poly(ethylene terephthalate) monomers for upcycling waste PET. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2019;7:19396–406.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Blank LM, Narancic T, Mampel J, Tiso T, O’Connor K. Biotechnological upcycling of plastic waste and other non-conventional feedstocks in a circular economy. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020;62:212–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.11.011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Werner AZ, et al. Tandem chemical deconstruction and biological upcycling of poly(ethylene terephthalate) to β-ketoadipic acid by Pseudomonas putida KT2440. Metab Eng. 2021;67:250–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Joo S, et al. Structural insight into molecular mechanism of poly(ethylene terephthalate) degradation. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu B, et al. Protein crystallography and site-direct mutagenesis analysis of the Poly(ethylene terephthalate) hydrolase PETase from Ideonella sakaiensis. ChemBioChem. 2018;19:1471–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Prigent-Combaret C, et al. Complex regulatory network controls initial adhesion and biofilm formation in Escherichia coli via regulation of the csgD gene. J Bacteriol. 2001;183:7213–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Amores GR, De Las Heras A, Sanches-Medeiros A, Elfick A, Silva-Rocha R. Systematic identification of novel regulatory interactions controlling biofilm formation in the bacterium Escherichia coli. Sci Rep. 2017;7:16768.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Karatan E, Watnick P. Signals, regulatory networks, and materials that build and break bacterial biofilms. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2009;73:310–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Philipp LA, Bühler K, Ulber R, Gescher J. Beneficial applications of biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023:1–15. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1038/s41579-023-00985-0.

  33. Saini S, Tewari S, Dwivedi J, Sharma V. Biofilm-mediated wastewater treatment: a comprehensive review. Mater Adv. 2023;4:1415–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Seneviratne G, Zavahir JS, Bandara WMMS, Weerasekara MLMAW. Fungal-bacterial biofilms: Their development for novel biotechnological applications. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008;24:739–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tong X, et al. Rapid enzyme regeneration results in the striking catalytic longevity of an engineered, single species, biocatalytic biofilm. Microb Cell Fact. 2016;15:180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Tsoligkas AN, et al. Engineering biofilms for biocatalysis. ChemBioChem. 2011;12:1391–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jiang Z, Nero T, Mukherjee S, Olson R, Yan J. Searching for the secret of stickiness: how biofilms adhere to surfaces. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:686793.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Klemm P, Schembri M. Type 1 Fimbriae, Curli, and Antigen 43: Adhesion, Colonization, and Biofilm Formation. EcoSal Plus. 2004;1(1). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1128/ecosalplus.8.3.2.6.

  39. Dunne WM. Bacterial adhesion: seen any good biofilms lately? Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15:155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hori K, Matsumoto S. Bacterial adhesion: from mechanism to control. Biochem Eng J. 2010;48:424–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pawar DM, Rossman ML, Chen J. Role of curli fimbriae in mediating the cells of enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli to attach to abiotic surfaces. J Appl Microbiol. 2005;99:418–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhi Xiang JK, Bairoliya S, Cho ZT, Cao B. Plastic-microbe interaction in the marine environment: research methods and opportunities. Environ Int. 2023;171:107716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Morohoshi T, et al. Biofilm formation and degradation of commercially available biodegradable plastic films by bacterial consortiums in freshwater environments. Microbes Environ. 2018;33:332–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Miao L, et al. Microbial carbon metabolic functions of biofilms on plastic debris influenced by the substrate types and environmental factors. Environ Int. 2020;143:106007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Debroy A, George N, Mukherjee G. Role of biofilms in the degradation of microplastics in aquatic environments. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2022;97:3271–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Tran KM, et al. Synthetically engineered microbial scavengers for enhanced bioremediation. J Hazard Mater. 2021;419:126516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Choi SY, et al. Sustainable production and degradation of plastics using microbes. Nat Microbiol. 2023;8:2253–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Leech J, Golub S, Allan W, Simmons MJH, Overton TW. Non-pathogenic Escherichia coli biofilms: effects of growth conditions and surface properties on structure and curli gene expression. Arch Microbiol. 2020;202:1517–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Bhagwat G, O’Connor W, Grainge I, Palanisami T. Understanding the fundamental basis for biofilm formation on plastic surfaces: role of conditioning films. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jin X, Riedel-Kruse IH. Biofilm Lithography enables high-resolution cell patterning via optogenetic adhesin expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:3698–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Schembri MA, Hjerrild L, Gjermansen M, Klemm P. Differential expression of the escherichia coli autoaggregation factor antigen 43. J Bacteriol. 2003;185:2236.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Park JP, Choi MJ, Kim SH, Lee SH, Lee H. Preparation of sticky escherichia coli through surface display of an adhesive catecholamine moiety. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:43–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Waite JH, Qin X. Polyphosphoprotein from the adhesive pads of Mytilus edulis. Biochemistry. 2001;40:2887–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Shi Y, Chen T, Shaw P, Wang PY. Manipulating bacterial biofilms using materiobiology and synthetic biology approaches. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:844997.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhu B, Ye Q, Seo Y, Wei N. Enzymatic degradation of polyethylene terephthalate plastics by bacterial curli display PETase. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2022;9:650–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Jia Y, et al. Hydrophobic cell surface display system of PETase as a sustainable biocatalyst for PET degradation. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:3881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Chen Z, et al. Biodegradation of highly crystallized poly(ethylene terephthalate) through cell surface codisplay of bacterial PETase and hydrophobin. Nat Commun. 2022;13:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hu J, Chen Y. Constructing Escherichia coli co - display systems for biodegradation of polyethylene terephthalate. Bioresour Bioprocess. 2023. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40643-023-00711-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Howard SA, McCarthy RR. Modulating biofilm can potentiate activity of novel plastic-degrading enzymes. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2023;9:72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Austin HP, et al. Characterization and engineering of a plastic-degrading aromatic polyesterase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:E4350–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Knott BC, et al. Characterization and engineering of a two-enzyme system for plastics depolymerization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117:25476–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Avilan L, et al. Concentration-dependent inhibition of mesophilic PETases on Poly(ethylene terephthalate) can be eliminated by enzyme engineering. Chemsuschem. 2023;16:e202202277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Blázquez-Sánchez P, et al. Antarctic polyester hydrolases degrade aliphatic and aromatic polyesters at moderate temperatures. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2022;88:e0184221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Son HF, et al. Rational protein engineering of thermo-stable PETase from Ideonella sakaiensis for highly efficient PET degradation. ACS Catal. 2019;9:3519–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Shi L, Liu H, Gao S, Weng Y, Zhu L. Enhanced extracellular production of IsPETase in Escherichia coli via engineering of the pelB signal peptide. J Agric Food Chem. 2021;69:2245–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Seo H, et al. Production of extracellular PETase from Ideonella sakaiensis using sec-dependent signal peptides in E. coli. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2019;508:250–5. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.11.087.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gercke D, Furtmann C, Tozakidis IEP, Jose J. Highly crystalline post-consumer PET waste hydrolysis by surface displayed PETase using a bacterial whole-cell biocatalyst. ChemCatChem. 2021;13:3479–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Chen Z, et al. Efficient biodegradation of highly crystallized polyethylene terephthalate through cell surface display of bacterial PETase. Sci Total Environ. 2020;709:136138.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Nguyen PQ, Botyanszki Z, Tay PKR, Joshi NS. Programmable biofilm-based materials from engineered curli nanofibres. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4945.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Linder MB, Szilvay GR, Nakari-Setälä T, Penttilä ME. Hydrophobins: the protein-amphiphiles of filamentous fungi. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2005;29:877–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Puspitasari N, Tsai SL, Lee CK. Fungal hydrophobin RolA enhanced PETase hydrolysis of polyethylene terephthalate. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2021;193:1284–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Giovambattista N, Debenedetti PG, Rossky PJ. Effect of surface polarity on water contact angle and interfacial hydration structure. J Phys Chem B. 2007;111:9581–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lu H, et al. Machine learning-aided engineering of hydrolases for PET depolymerization. Nature. 2022;604:662–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Howard SA, et al. Enrichment of native plastic-associated biofilm communities to enhance polyester degrading activity. Environ Microbiol. 2023;25:2698–718.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Shabbir S, et al. Periphytic biofilm: an innovative approach for biodegradation of microplastics. Sci Total Environ. 2020;717:137064.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Herrero Acero E, et al. Enzymatic surface hydrolysis of PET: Effect of structural diversity on kinetic properties of cutinases from Thermobifida. Macromolecules. 2011;44:4632–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Miller ME, Hamann M, Kroon FJ. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics in marine organisms: a review and meta-analysis of current data. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0240792.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Sajjad M, et al. Microplastics in the soil environment: a critical review. Environ Technol Innov. 2022;27:102408.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. De-la-Torre GE. Microplastics: an emerging threat to food security and human health. J Food Sci Technol. 2020;57:1601–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Jenner LC, et al. Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy. Sci Total Environ. 2022;831:154907.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Yang Y, et al. Detection of various microplastics in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57:10911–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Rout PR, et al. Micro- and nanoplastics removal mechanisms in wastewater treatment plants: a review. J Hazardous Mater Adv. 2022;6:100070.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Sadia M, et al. Microplastics pollution from wastewater treatment plants: a critical review on challenges, detection, sustainable removal techniques and circular economy. Environ Technol Innov. 2022;28:102946.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Liu W, et al. A review of the removal of microplastics in global wastewater treatment plants: characteristics and mechanisms. Environ Int. 2021;146:106277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Singh S, et al. Micro (nano) plastics in wastewater: a critical review on toxicity risk assessment, behaviour, environmental impact and challenges. Chemosphere. 2022;290:133169.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Jennings LK, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa aggregates in cystic fibrosis sputum produce exopolysaccharides that likely impede current therapies. Cell Rep. 2021;34:108782.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Melaugh G, et al. Distinct types of multicellular aggregates in Pseudomonas aeruginosa liquid cultures. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2023;9:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Romero M, Carabelli AR, Swift M, Smith MI. Fluid dynamics and cell-bound Psl polysaccharide allows microplastic capture, aggregation and subsequent sedimentation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in water. Environ Microbiol. 2022;24:1560–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Liu SY, Leung MML, Fang JKH, Chua SL. Engineering a microbial ‘trap and release’ mechanism for microplastics removal. Chem Eng J. 2021;404:127079.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Chan SY, Wong MWT, Kwan BTC, Fang JKH, Chua SL. Microbial-enzymatic combinatorial approach to capture and release microplastics. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2022;9:975–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Valentini M, Filloux A. Biofilms and Cyclic di-GMP (c-di-GMP) signaling: lessons from pseudomonas aeruginosa and other bacteria. J Biol Chem. 2016;291:12547–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Ha DG, O’Toole GA. c-di-GMP and its effects on biofilm formation and dispersion: a pseudomonas aeruginosa review. Microbiol Spectr. 2015;3. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1128/microbiolspec.MB-0003-2014.

  93. Borlee BR, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa uses a cyclic-di-GMP-regulated adhesin to reinforce the biofilm extracellular matrix. Mol Microbiol. 2010;75:827–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Iyare PU, Ouki SK, Bond T. Microplastics removal in wastewater treatment plants: a critical review. Environ Sci (Camb). 2020;6:2664–75.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Highmore CJ, et al. Translational challenges and opportunities in biofilm science: a BRIEF for the future. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2022;8:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Falk-Andersson J, et al. Cleaning up without messing up: maximizing the benefits of plastic clean-up technologies through new regulatory approaches. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57:13304–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Falk-Andersson J, Larsen Haarr M, Havas V. Basic principles for development and implementation of plastic clean-up technologies: what can we learn from fisheries management? Sci Total Environ. 2020;745:141117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Zheng S, et al. Implication of surface properties, bacterial motility, and hydrodynamic conditions on bacterial surface sensing and their initial adhesion. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Chan CTY, Lee JW, Cameron DE, Bashor CJ, Collins JJ. “Deadman” and “Passcode” microbial kill switches for bacterial containment. Nat Chem Biol. 2016;12:82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Stirling F, et al. Rational design of evolutionarily stable microbial kill switches. Mol Cell. 2017;68:686.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Rottinghaus AG, Ferreiro A, Fishbein SRS, Dantas G, Moon TS. Genetically stable CRISPR-based kill switches for engineered microbes. Nat Commun. 2022;13:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

A. S. acknowledges a PhD studentship from the BBSRC EASTBIO Doctoral Training Programme and support by the UKRI Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) grant number BB/T00875X/1. G. M. acknowledges the National Biofilms Innovation Centre NBIC/BBSRC/UKRI (BB/X002950/1). J. C. S. acknowledges a Discovery Fellowship from the BBSRC (BB/S010629/1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Quantitative Biology, Biochemistry and Biotechnology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Roger Land Building, Alexander Crum Brown Road, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3FF, UK

    Arianna Schneier & Joanna C. Sadler

  2. School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3FD, UK

    Gavin Melaugh

  3. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JL, UK

    Gavin Melaugh

Authors
  1. Arianna Schneier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gavin Melaugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna C. Sadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J. C. S. conceived the proposal and primary structure of the manuscript; wrote the introduction, the “Engineered microbes for enhanced plastic adhesion” section and conclusions/outlook; and oversaw and edited the writing of all sections. A. S. compiled Tables 1 and 2 and wrote the “Engineered microbes for bulk plastic adhesion and degradation” section. G. M. wrote the “Engineered microbes for capture and degradation of microplastics” section and prepared Fig. 3.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna C. Sadler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schneier, A., Melaugh, G. & Sadler, J.C. Engineered plastic-associated bacteria for biodegradation and bioremediation. Biotechnol Environ 1, 7 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s44314-024-00007-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s44314-024-00007-0

Keywords

Biotechnology for the Environment

ISSN: 2948-2356

Contact us