Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Soil Geobacteraceae are the key predictors of neurotoxic methylmercury bioaccumulation in rice

Abstract

Contamination of rice by the potent neurotoxin methylmercury (MeHg) originates from microbe-mediated Hg methylation in soils. However, the high diversity of Hg methylating microorganisms in soils hinders the prediction of MeHg formation and challenges the mitigation of MeHg bioaccumulation via regulating soil microbiomes. Here we explored the roles of various cropland microbial communities in MeHg formation in the potentials leading to MeHg accumulation in rice and reveal that Geobacteraceae are the key predictors of MeHg bioaccumulation in paddy soil systems. We characterized Hg methylating microorganisms from 67 cropland ecosystems across 3,600 latitudinal kilometres. The simulations of a rice-paddy biogeochemical model show that MeHg accumulation in rice is 1.3–1.7-fold more sensitive to changes in the relative abundance of Geobacteraceae compared to Hg input, which is recognized as the primary parameter in controlling MeHg exposure. These findings open up a window to predict MeHg formation and accumulation in human food webs, enabling more efficient mitigation of risks to human health through regulations of key soil microbiomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The distribution patterns of Hg methylating microbial communities and Hg methylation potentials in rice-paddy soils across China.
Fig. 2: Evidence obtained from metabolism assays that supports the dominant role of Geobacteraceae in MeHg formation.
Fig. 3: Relationships between Hg methylation potential in soil and the relative abundance of different microbial methylators.
Fig. 4: The framework of rice-paddy biogeochemical model and its evaluation.
Fig. 5: Evidence supporting Se fertilization as an alternative approach to effectively mitigate Hg risk.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The authors declare that the main data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its Supplementary Information file and the Source data. The data of rice-planting area for each country was obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) website (https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL). The per-capita rice consumption rates were retrieved from China Statistical Yearbook 2011 (https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/ndsj/2011/indexch.htm). The shape data for the map of China is provided by the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center (https://www.resdc.cn/Datalist1.aspx?FieldTyepID=20,0, accessed on 18 October 2022). Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Code of rice-paddy model are available in the Source data.

References

  1. Global Mercury Assessment 2018 (UNEP, 2018).

  2. Kirk, L. E., Jørgensen, J. S., Nielsen, F. & Grandjean, P. Public health benefits of hair-mercury analysis and dietary advice in lowering methylmercury exposure in pregnant women. Scand. J. Public Health 45, 444–451 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellanger, M. et al. Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention. Environ. Health 12, 3 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rothenberg, S. E., Jackson, B. P., Carly McCalla, G., Donohue, A. & Emmons, A. M. Co-exposure to methylmercury and inorganic arsenic in baby rice cereals and rice-containing teething biscuits. Environ. Res. 159, 639–647 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gong, Y. et al. Bioaccessibility-corrected risk assessment of urban dietary methylmercury exposure via fish and rice consumption in China. Sci. Total Environ. 630, 222–230 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cui, W. et al. Occurrence of methylmercury in rice-based infant cereals and estimation of daily dietary intake of methylmercury for infants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 65, 9569–9578 (2017).

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang, Z., Sun, T., Driscoll, C. T., Yin, Y. & Zhang, X. Mechanism of accumulation of methylmercury in rice (Oryza sativa L.) in a mercury mining area. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 9749–9757 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Parks, J. M. et al. The genetic basis for bacterial mercury methylation. Science 339, 1332–1335 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gilmour, C. C. et al. Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11810–11820 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu, Y. R. et al. Overlooked role of putative non-Hg methylators in predicting methylmercury production in paddy soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 12330–12338 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beckers, F. & Rinklebe, J. Cycling of mercury in the environment: sources, fate, and human health implications: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 693–794 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu, Y.-R. et al. Unraveling microbial communities associated with methylmercury production in paddy soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 13110–13118 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tang, W. et al. Increased methylmercury accumulation in rice after straw amendment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 6144–6153 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yuan, H. Y. et al. Geographic distance and amorphous iron affect the abundance and distribution of Geobacteraceae in paddy soils in China. J. Soils Sediments 16, 2657–2665 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bravo, A. G. et al. Geobacteraceae are important members of mercury-methylating microbial communities of sediments impacted by waste water releases. ISME J. 12, 802–812 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bouchet, S. et al. Linking microbial activities and low-molecular-weight thiols to Hg methylation in biofilms and periphyton from high-altitude tropical lakes in the Bolivian Altiplano. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 9758–9767 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goñi-Urriza, M. et al. Relationships between bacterial energetic metabolism, mercury methylation potential, and hgcA/hgcB gene expression in Desulfovibrio dechloroacetivorans BerOc1. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 13764–13771 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tong, H., Hu, M., Li, F. B., Liu, C. S. & Chen, M. J. Biochar enhances the microbial and chemical transformation of pentachlorophenol in paddy soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 70, 142–150 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang, J. et al. Mobilization, methylation, and demethylation of mercury in a paddy soil under systematic redox changes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 10133–10141 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coleman Wasik, J. K. et al. Methylmercury declines in a boreal peatland when experimental sulfate deposition decreases. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 6663–6671 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu, Q. et al. Methanogenesis is an important process in controlling MeHg concentration in rice paddy soils affected by mining activities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 13517–13526 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kwon, S. Y., Selin, N. E., Giang, A., Karplus, V. J. & Zhang, D. Present and future mercury concentrations in Chinese rice: insights from modeling. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 32, 437–462 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Li, C. H. et al. Pollen and phytolith analyses of ancient paddy fields at Chuodun site, the Yangtze River Delta. Pedosphere 17, 209–218 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu, B. et al. Promoting potato as staple food can reduce the carbon–land–water impacts of crops in China. Nat. Food 2, 570–577 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ullah, H. et al. A comprehensive review on environmental transformation of selenium: recent advances and research perspectives. Environ. Geochem. Health 41, 1003–1035 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen, L. et al. Determination of selenium concentration of rice in China and effect of fertilization of selenite and selenate on selenium content of rice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50, 5128–5130 (2002).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu, Q., Li, G., Wang, S., Liu, K. & Hao, J. Mitigation options of atmospheric Hg emissions in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 12368–12375 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lovley, D. R. et al. Geobacter. The microbe electric’s physiology, ecology, and practical applications. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 59, 1–100 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Li, X., Ding, L., Li, X. & Zhu, Y. Abundance, diversity, and structure of Geobacteraceae community in paddy soil under long-term fertilization practices. Appl. Soil Ecol. 153, 103577 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leclerc, M. et al. Microbial diversity and mercury methylation activity in periphytic biofilms at a run-of-river hydroelectric dam and constructed wetlands. mSphere 6, e00021 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Yuan, K. et al. Mercury methylation-related microbes and genes in the sediments of the Pearl River Estuary and the South China Sea. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 185, 109722 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones, D. S. et al. Molecular evidence for novel mercury methylating microorganisms in sulfate-impacted lakes. ISME J. 13, 1659–1675 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Compeau, G. C. & Bartha, R. Sulfate-reducing bacteria: principal methylators of mercury in anoxic estuarine sediment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50, 498–502 (1985).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Schartup, A. T. et al. Climate change and overfishing increase neurotoxicant in marine predators. Nature 572, 648–650 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang, H. et al. Decreasing mercury levels in consumer fish over the three decades of increasing mercury emissions in China. Eco-Environ. Health 1, 46–52 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang, Y. et al. Global health effects of future atmospheric mercury emissions. Nat. Commun. 12, 3035 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ancora, M. P., Zhang, L., Wang, S., Schreifels, J. & Hao, J. Economic analysis of atmospheric mercury emission control for coal-fired power plants in China. J. Environ. Sci. 33, 125–134 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Carini, P., Marsden, P. J., Leff, J. W., Morgan, E. E. & Fierer, N. Relic DNA is abundant in soil and obscures estimates of soil microbial diversity. Nat. Microbiol. 19, 16242 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhao, L. et al. Mercury methylation in paddy soil: source and distribution of mercury species at a Hg mining area, Guizhou Province, China. Biogeosciences 13, 2429–2440 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hintelmann, H., Keppel-Jones, K. & Evans, R. D. Constants of mercury methylation and demethylation rates in sediments and comparison of tracer and ambient mercury availability. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19, 2204–2211 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Fan, K., Weisenhorn, P., Gilbert, J. A. & Chu, H. Wheat rhizosphere harbors a less complex and more stable microbial co-occurrence pattern than bulk soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 125, 251–260 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Yu, R. Q., Reinfelder, J. R., Hines, M. E. & Barkay, T. Syntrophic pathways for microbial mercury methylation. ISME J.12, 1826–1835 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Lei, P. et al. Properly interpret metabolic inhibition results to identify primary mercury methylating microbes. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 1757–1773 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Lovley, D. R., Holmes, D. E. & Nevin, K. P. Dissimilatory Fe(III) and Mn(IV) reduction. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 49, 219–286 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Balci, N. et al. Iron isotope fractionation during microbially stimulated Fe(II) oxidation and Fe(III) precipitation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 622–639 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ratering, S. & Schnell, S. Localization of iron-reducing activity in paddy soil by profile studies. Biogeochemistry 48, 341–365 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kerin, E. J. et al. Mercury methylation by dissimilatory iron-reducing bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 7919–7921 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. An, J. et al. Mercury uptake by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132: passive or active? Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 6264–6272 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Christensen, G. A. et al. Development and validation of broad-range qualitative and clade specific quantitative molecular probes for assessing mercury methylation in the environment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 6068–6078 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Podar, M. et al. Global prevalence and distribution of genes and microorganisms involved in mercury methylation. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500675 (2015).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate G. Qiu (Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences) for providing data on site-specific rice MeHg concentrations for the model evaluation. W. Tang appreciates the financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (42107223), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (0211-14380175) and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK 20230082 and BK 20190319). H.Z. gets supports from National Natural Science Foundation of China (41673075). Y.-R.L. acknowledges financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (42177022), and L.C. appreciates National Natural Science Foundation of China (41701589). H.R. is supported by the financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (52388101).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

H.Z., Y.-R.L., L.C. and W. Tang conceived and designed this study. W. Tang, Z.L. and Y.H. conducted all the experiments. Y.-R.L. led the analysis of microbial community. Z.L. and X.Z. modified the RPBM with the help from S.Y.K. L.C. and L.M.N. did the sensitivity analysis. H.Z., Y.-R.L., L.C. and W. Tang led the manuscript writing. C.S. and M.W. significantly contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and other authors participated in the writing.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Huan Zhong, Christian Sonne, Long Chen or Yu-Rong Liu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Shaojie Song, Yuebing Sun, Anil Somenahally and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Location, rice yield (annual provincial yield, a), and Hg concentrations (b and c) in 67 sites of paddy soil across Asia.

The background colors in panel (a) indicate the national rice planting areas (million ha, 2017) in these countries and these data were obtained from the FAO website (accessed on Oct. 14 2022). The global map is provided by Natural Earth (https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cultural-vectors/, accessed on Oct. 18 2022). The base map of China is provided by the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center (https://www.resdc.cn/Datalist1.aspx?FieldTyepID=20,0, accessed on 18 October 2022).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Microbial community of hgcA+ microbes in rice paddy soils during rice cultivation (a) and the relative abundance of hgcA-containing Geobacteraceae in rhizospheric and non-rhizospheric paddy soils (b).

NS indicates there are no significant (p > 0.05; one-way ANOVA) differences between the two groups. N = 15 for each type of soils. For box plot, the box, whisker, line, square, and diamond indicate a 25−75% range, 10−90% range, median, mean, and outliers, respectively.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 The relationship between Hg methylation potential (the ratio of soil MeHg to soil THg, MeHg/THg, %) and hgcA-containing Deltaproteobacteria (a) or Archaea (b).

P values are obtained based on a two-sided test.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 Changes in dissolved THg concentration in the overlying water in the metabolism inhibition assays with Se addition.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 3 replicates.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 The concentrations of sulfate in metabolism inhibition assay I.

Asterisk indicates the significant difference (*, p < 0.05; ***, p < 0.001; one-way ANOVA) between two treatments. Data are presented as mean ± SD. For high FeRB soils, n = 9 soils × 3 replicates for each soil. For high SRB and high methanogens soil, n = 4 soils × 3 replicates for each soil. The value obtained from each replicate is plotted as a dot on the bar.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 The evaluation of the THg concentration in surface water (a, b, c) and pore water (d, e, f).

In panels (a) and (d), data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 7 (Anhui), 10 (Guangdong), 8 (Guangxi), 16 (Guizhou), 4 (Hainan), 5 (Heilongjiang), 3 (Hubei), 8 (Hunan), 5 (Jiangsu), 3 (Jiangxi), 7 (Liaoning), and 2 sites (Sichuan) for the observed values, and n = 5, 5, 3, 6, 2, 8, 8, 7, 8, 7, 3, 5 sites for the modeled values for above provinces. Each dot on the bar indicates the value for a site. In panels (b) and (e), each dot represents a provincial average. P values are obtained based on a two-sided test. Error bands are 95% confidence intervals of the regression lines. In panels (c) and (f), the box, whisker, line, square, and diamond indicate a 25−75% range, 1.5 IQR range, median, mean, and outliers, respectively. The sample size is 78 and 67 sites for the Observed and Modeled, respectively.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 The evaluation of the THg (a, b, c) and MeHg concentration in soils (d, e, f).

In panels (a) and (d), data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 7 (Anhui), 10 (Guangdong), 8 (Guangxi), 16 (Guizhou), 4 (Hainan), 5 (Heilongjiang), 3 (Hubei), 8 (Hunan), 5 (Jiangsu), 3 (Jiangxi), 7 (Liaoning), and 2 sites (Sichuan) for the observed values, and n = 5, 5, 3, 6, 2, 8, 8, 7, 8, 7, 3, 5 sites for the modeled values for above provinces. Each dot on the bar indicates the value for a site. Asterisk indicates the significant difference (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; one-way ANOVA) between the observed and modeled values. In panels (b) and (e), each dot represents a provincial average. P values are obtained based on a two-sided test. Error bands are 95% confidence intervals of the regression lines. In panels (c) and (f), the box, whisker, line, square, and diamond indicate a 25−75% range, 1.5 IQR range, median, mean, and outliers, respectively. The sample size is 78 and 67 sites for the Observed and Modeled, respectively.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 8 The responses of rice MeHg to changes in the relative abundance of FeRB, SRB, or methanogens.

(a) increase of 10% in the relative abundance of microbial methylators. (b) decrease of 10% in the relative abundance of microbial methylators. Asterisk indicates the significant difference (***, p < 0.001; one-way ANOVA). The box, whisker, line, and square indicate a 25−75% range, 1.5 IQR range, median, and mean values, respectively. The sample size is 67 sites for model simulations.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 9 The responses of rice MeHg (a), changes in IQ decrement (b) and HQ (c) to a 10% decrease in deposition, irrigation, or FeRB abundance.

The box, whisker, line, square, and diamond indicate a 25−75% range, 1.5 IQR range, median, mean, and outliers, respectively. The sample size is 67 sites for model simulations.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 10 Relationships between Hg methylation potential in soil and the relative abundance of Syntrophs.

P values are obtained based on a two-sided test.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods 1 and 2, Discussion 1–7, Figs. 1–5, Tables 1–8 and references.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Figs. 1–4 and 5

Source data for figures in the main article.

Source Data Fig. 4a

Matlab code for the rice-paddy biogeochemistry model.

Source Data Extended Data Figs. 1–10

Source data for all the extended data figures.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhong, H., Tang, W., Li, Z. et al. Soil Geobacteraceae are the key predictors of neurotoxic methylmercury bioaccumulation in rice. Nat Food 5, 301–311 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00954-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00954-7

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing