1. Introduction

AiM

Advances in Microbiology

2165-3402

Scientific Research Publishing

10.4236/aim.2023.136018

AiM-125713

Articles

Biomedical&Life Sciences

Aquatic Microbiota: A Systematic Review

Karolayne

Silva Souza

¹Milena

Roberta Freire da Silva

¹Ilton

Palmeira da Silva

²Lívia

Caroline Alexandre de Araújo

¹Rafael

Artur de Queiroz Cavalcanti de Sá

¹Fabricio

Motteran

¹Bruno

Oliveira de Veras

¹Maria

Betânia Melo de Oliveira

¹^*

Departamento de Bioqu&iacute;mica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco—UFPE, Recife, Brazil

Centro Universit&aacute;rio do River S&atilde;o Francisco—UniRios, Paulo Afonso, Brazil

19062023

130628429814, April 202317, June 2023 20, June 2023

2014

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Freshwater environments are the main ecosystems subjected to various anthropogenic impacts, which have caused the waterborne transmission of diseases caused mainly by bacteria. The main objective of this work was to carry out a systematic analysis through the literature on the main microorganisms found in impacted aquatic environments and to relate the data with the risks to public health. This review was planned, conducted and reported following the PRISMA protocol, which was used the PECO strategy. There performed searches for studies using the electronic databases PubMed, Medline and LILACS in September 2021, using the controlled search strategy: “Bacteria” and “Ecosystem” and “Environment” and “Aquatic” and “Impacted. The studies that met the eligibility criteria were considered eligible, with the participation of two independent reviewers. There found 1058 studies, of which were chosen only 31 to compose the results of this systematic review. Because of the results, there observed that the predominant bacterial genera in freshwater are: Pseudomonas, Aeromonas, and Escherichia, with the Asian continent presenting more varieties of bacterial species detected. These microorganisms are responsible for causing diseases that can lead to death, which shows the importance of constantly monitoring these ecosystems.

Water Microorganisms Pathogenicity Monitoring

1. Introduction

Water is one of the essential resources for sustaining life. However, anthropogenic activities have caused dangerous pollution problems, especially in freshwater environments [1] . One of the main factors that cause deterioration in these ecosystems is the release of effluents without treatment, mainly by agricultural, industrial, and livestock activities, which can cause damage to the health of people and the organisms that live there [2] .

Water can carry harmful bacteria to health since these microorganisms can cause waterborne diseases capable of leading to death, known to adapt to most different environments in isolation or groups [3] . These microorganisms, in turn, play a fundamental role in providing resistance and resilience against changes/pollution, which can measure the environmental stressors present by the practice of either-or inadequate management of these ecosystems [2] .

According to the United Nations (UN), most diseases and deaths in developing countries are caused by microorganisms waterborne diseases, mainly due to the lack of sanitation, which can increase expenses with hospital admissions [4] . Therefore, these bacteria represent a risk to human health, causing approximately 870,000 deaths per year [5] [6] .

For this reason, the microorganisms investigation in freshwater aquatic environments is essential to assess changes in these ecosystems. Thus, the main objective of this article was to carry out a systematic analysis through the literature on the main microorganisms found in impacted aquatic environments and to relate the data with the risks to public health.

2. Methodology

Protocol

This investigation was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was organized into the planning, conducting, and reporting data phases.

Eligibility criteria

There used the PECO strategy to conduct this investigation: Population—Microorganisms, Exposure—Freshwater aquatic environments, Comparison—not applicable, and Outcomes—Main microorganisms found in freshwater environments.

Studies that considered the main microorganisms isolated in freshwater environments without year and-or language restrictions were eligible. The exclusion competed with editorial files, typical discussion documents, comments, letters, incomplete or insufficient data studies (studies that did not contain information on microorganism identification methodology), duplicates and titles that do not corroborate with the theme.

Information and Research Sources

The searches were carried out in the electronic databases PubMed, Medline, and LILACS. There selected the definition of descriptors and synonyms from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Decs (Descriptors of Health Sciences) and were also used keywords to assist in the controlled search strategy of scientific studies. Therefore, the resulting terms for the search strategy were: “Bacteria” and “Ecosystem” and “Environment” and “Aquatic” and “Impacted”.

Selection of studies

The selection of studies had the participation of two independent reviewers, which became reliable, separately and blindly, since the following variables were considered: Reasons for inclusion and exclusion of studies. The 1^st stage consisted of studies analysis by title, so duplicates were eliminated. The 2^nd stage consisted of the eligibility criteria discussion with the relationship of the PECO strategy since those studies that were not related to the proposed strategy were eliminated. The 3^rd and last stage included the studies elimination after reading the abstract and total studies, which did not provide sufficient information and data to conduct this systematic review.

Data collection process

Soon after the selection of studies, there extracted information through a form created by the authors to record the selected studies’ data, which there used a defined protocol. The included items consisted of the First author, year of publication, place of study, genus and species of the isolated microorganism, and type of environment in which the author(s) carried out the study; thus, they were tabulated in an Excel spreadsheet. Any necessary calculations for the data were performed by two researchers, and if there were discrepancies, they would be resolved through group discussion.

Risk of Bias

The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Assessment Checklist for Qualitative Research [7] . Risk classification consisted of High (greater than 49% of studies scoring “yes”), Moderate (studies achieving 50% to 69% of “yes” scores), and Low (studies reaching higher than 70% of “yes” scores); thus, there excluded those with high publication bias. Because of this, two reviewers independently evaluated each study. Then, the information was verified so that in the event of ambiguity, a third reviewer was involved in the assessment of bias in the studies.

3. Results

According to the searches carried out in the electronic databases, there obtained 1058 studies in total, of which 173 were eliminated by duplication, 716 by title, and 103 because they did not meet the eligibility criteria, accounting for a total of 31 studies included in this systematic review. Figure 1 corresponds to the flowchart showing the respective quantitative and qualitative data for the exclusion and inclusion articles.

Seeing the eligible studies, there performed the first analysis to identify the microorganism predominance in aquatic environments distributed on different continents. As a first result, there observed that the North American and Asian continents had the highest number of published studies on this topic, of which China and the United States were the most contemplated publications in the area. About the Latin American continent, Brazil stands out as the country with the highest number of publications. The data synthesis related to publications on

the subject by continent and their respective countries can be seen in Table 1, Figure 2.

Regarding the main genera and species of microorganisms found in these environments, the qualitative distribution can be seen in Table 2. There observed a total of 99 different bacterial genera and 150 species.

The bacterial genera that were found with the highest incidence were: Pseudomonas (n = 15), Aeromonas (n = 11), Escherichia (n = 9), and the most abundant species were: Pseudomonas—P. putida, P. aeruginosa, P. taiwanensis, P. geniculata, P. otitidis, Aeromonas—A. veronii, A. caviae, A. hydrophila; Bacillus—B. licheniformis; Enterobacter—E. clocae, E. asburiae; Escherichia—E. coli, and Klebsiella—K. pneumoniae.

Regarding the assessment of the risk of JBI bias, there observed that most of the responses to the critical evaluation questionnaire of the 31 studies consisted of “Yes” answers (>70%), indicating that the respective studies had a low risk of bias. Therefore, they have a high methodological quality.

4. Discussions

Aquatic environments are formed by marine and/or freshwater ecosystems.

Table 1 Quantitative synthesis of publications by continent and countries

CONTINENT	COUNTRIES	STUDIES	N˚	Total
Africa	Democratic Republic of Congo	Laffite et al., 2016 [8]	1	1
North America	Canada	Gromala; Neufeld; Mcconkey, 2021 [9]	1	9
	USA	Williams et al., 2018 [10] , Choi; Dunams; Jiang, 2010 [11] , Chu et al., 2018 [12] , Skwor et al., 2020 [13] , Harmon et al., 2019 [14] , Londono et al., 2019 [15] , Bared et al., 2013 [16]	7
	Mexico	Brito et al., 2015 [17]	1
South America	Brazil	Carvalho et al., 2007 [18] , Conte et al., 2021 [19] , Regina et al., 2021 [20] , Purificação et al., 2017 [21]	4	6
	Colombia	Perlaza et al., 2019 [22]	1
	Chile	Leon et al., 2012 [23]	1
Asia	China	Chen et al., 2019 [24] , Li et al., 2019 [25] , Liang et al., 2020 [26] , Liao et al., 2018 [27] , Niu et al., 2019 [28] , Xiao et al., 2013 [29] , Xie et al., 2021 [30] , Zhang et al., 2020 [31]	8	9
Asia	Japan	Miyagi et al., 2019 [32]	1	9
Europe	Spain	Piedra et al., 2017 [33]	1	6
	France	Devarajan et al., 2015 [34] , Girlich, Poirel, Nordmann, 2011 [35]	2
	Italy	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2012 [36]	1
	Portugal	Tacao; Correia; Henriques, 2015 [37]	1
	Switzerland	Corno et al., 2014 [38]	1

Source: Authors, 2023.

Table 2 Qualitative synthesis of the main genera and species of microorganisms found in impacted freshwater environments

GENUS	SPECIES	TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT	STUDIES
Aeromonas	Aeromonas spp.	River, Pond	Chu et al., 2018 [12] , Liang et al., 2020 [26] , Regina et al., 2021 [20] , Girlich; Poirel; Nordmann, 2011 [35]
	A. veronii	Residual waters, River, Pond	Brito et al., 2015 [17] , Skwor et al., 2020 [13] , Harmon et al., 2019 [14] , Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [36] , Conte et al., 2021 [19]
	A. caviae	Residual waters	Conte et al., 2021 [19] , Skwor et al., 2020 [13]
	A. sanarelli	Residual waters	Conte et al., 2023 [19]
	A. hydrophila	Residual waters, Pond, River	Conte et al., 2023 [19] , Corno et al., 2014 [38] , Skwor et al., 2020 [13] , Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [36]
	A. jandaei	River	Skwor et al., 2020 [13] , Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [36]
	A. média	River	Skwor et al., 2020 [13]
Acidovorax	Acidovorax spp.	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Acinetobacter	Acinetobacter spp.	Pond, River, Stream	Chu et al., 2018 [12] , Gromala; Neufeld; Mcconkey, 2021 [9] , Liao et al., 2018 [27] , Londono et al., 2019 [15] , Regina et al., 2021 [20] , Zhang et al., 2020 [31]
Alkaliphilus	Alkaliphilus spp.	River	Niu et al., 2019 [28]
Anammoxglobus	Anammoxglobus spp.	River	Chen et al., 2019 [24]
Aquabacterium	Aquabacterium spp.	Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25]
Arenimonas	Arenimonas spp.	Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25]
Arcicella	Arcicella spp.	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Arcobacter	Arcobacter spp.	Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25]
Armatimonas	Armatimonas spp.	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Bacillus	Bacillus spp.	Pond, River	Li et al., 2019 [25] , Niu et al., 2019 [28]
	B. cereus	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2012 [36]
	B. subtilis		Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2013 [36]
	B. licheniformis		Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36] , Purificação et al., 2017 [21]
	B. pumilis		Purificação et al., 2017 [21]
Bacteroides	Bacteroides spp.	River, Pond	Perlaza et al., 2019 [22] , Regina et al., 2021 [20] , Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Brevundimonas	Brevundimonas spp.	Pond	Gromala; Neufeld; Mcconkey, 2021 [9]
	B. intermedia	Pond	Corno et al., 2014 [38]
	B. vesiculares	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Brocadia	Brocadia spp.	River	Chen et al., 2019 [24]
Burkholderia	B. cepacia	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2017 [36]
Chromobacterium	C. haemolyticum	River	Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
Citrobacter	C. diversus	Stream	Miyagi et al., 2019 [32]
Clostridium	Clostridium spp.	Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25]
Cronobacter	Cronobacter spp.	River	Niu et al., 2019 [28]
Cryobacterium	Cryobacterium spp.	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Cupriavidus	C. gilardii	Pond	Harmon et al., 2019 [14]
Delftia	D. tsuruhatensis	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Desulfatiglans	Desulfatiglans spp.	Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25]
Desulfatirhabdium	D. butyrativorans		Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Desulfobacca	Desulfobacca spp.		Li et al., 2019 [25]
Dolichospermum	Dolichospermum spp.	River	Liao et al., 2018 [26]
Enterobacter	Enterobacter spp.	River	Regina et al., 2021 [20]
	E. cloacae	Stream, River	Purificação et al., 2017 [21] , Miyagi et al., 2019 [32] , Piedra et al., 2017 [33]
	E. aerogenes	Stream	Miyagi et al., 2019 [32]
	E. asburiae	Pond, River	Harmon et al., 2019 [14] , Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
	E. ludwigii	River	Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
Enterococcus	Enterococcus spp.	Pond, Residual waters	Devarajan et al., 2015 [34] , Laffite et al., 2016 [8]
Escherichia	Escherichia spp.	Pond	Chu et al., 2018 [12]
	E. coli	River, Residual waters, Pond	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36] , Bared et al., 2013 [16] , Perlaza et al., 2019 [22] , Purificação et al., 2017 [21] , Miyagi et al., 2019 [32] , Piedra et al., 2017 [33] , Laffite et al., 20168, Devarajan et al., 2015 [34]
	E. coli enterohemorrágica	River	Xiao et al., 2013 [29]
Exiguobacterium	Exiguobacterium spp.	River, Pond, Stream	Zhang et al., 2020 [31] , Liao et al., 2018 [27] , Purificação et al., 2017 [21]
Faecalibacterium	Faecalibacterium Spp.	River	Perlaza et al., 2019 [22]
Flavobacterium	Flavobacterium spp.	Pond, River, Stream	Li et al., 2019 [25] , Liao et al., 2018 [37] , Londono et al., 2019 [15] , Xie et al., 2021 [30]
	F. aquatile	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36]
	F. rigense	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36]
Fluoribacter	F. dumoffii	River	Carvalho et al., 2007 [18]
Fluviicola	Fluviicola Spp.	River, Stream	Liao et al., 2018 [27] , Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Francisella	Francisella Spp.	Pond	Chu et al., 2018 [12]
Gaiella	Gaiella Spp.		Li et al., 2019 [25]
Geobacter	Geobacter Spp.		Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Haliangium	Haliangium Spp.		Li et al., 2019 [25]
Helicobacter	Helicobacter spp.		Chu et al., 2018 [12]
Jetternia	Jetternia spp.	River	Chen et al., 2019 [24]
Klebsiella	K. pneumoniae	Stream, River	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36] , Purificação et al., 2017 [21] , Piedra et al., 2017 [33] , Miyagi et al., 2019 [32]
	K. aerogenes	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36]
	K. ozaenae	Stream	Miyagi et al., 2019 [32]
	K. oxytoca	River	Piedra et al., 2017 [33]
Kuenenia	Leclercia Spp.	River	Liang et al., 2020 [26]
Leclercia	Legionella Spp.	Pond	Chu et al., 2018 [12]
Legionella	L. pneumophila	River	Carvalho et al., 2007 [18]
	L. birminghamensis
	L. bozemonil
	L. lytica
Liminohabitans	Liminohabitans spp.	River, Pond	Liang et al., 2020 [26] , Perlaza et al., 2019 [22] , Xie et al., 2021 [30] , Zhang et al., 2020 [31]
Luteolibacter	Luteolibacter spp.	River	Liao et al., 2018 [27]
Luteolibacter	L. agae	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Malikia	Malikia spp.	Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25]
Massilia	Massilia spp.		Li et al., 2019 [25]
Methylobacter	M. tundripaludum		Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Methylobacterium	M. tardum	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Methylocaldum	Methylocaldum spp.	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Methylosinus	Methylosinus spp.	River	Perlaza et al., 2019 [22]
Methylotenera	M. mobilis	River	Liao et al., 2018 [27]
Methyloterna	M. versitalis	Pond	Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Micrococcus	M. luteus	Pond	Corno et al., 2014 [38]
Microcystis	Microcystis spp.	River	Liao et al., 2018 [27]
Moraxella	Moraxella spp.	Pond	Chu et al., 2018 [12]
Mycobacterium	Mycobacterium spp.	River, Pond	Zhang et al., 2020 [31]
Mycobacterium	M.smegmatis	River	Brito et al., 2015 [17]
Neisseria	Neisseria spp.	Pond	Chu et al., 2018 [12]
Nitrosospira	N. briensis	Pond	Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Nitrospira	Nitrospira spp.	River, Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25] , Zhang et al., 2020 [31]
Novosphingobium	Novosphingobium spp.	Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25]
Novosphingobium	N. subterraneum	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Opitutus	Opitutus spp.	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Paenibacillus	Paenibacillus spp.	River	Niu et al., 2019 [28]
Pantoea	Pantoea spp.	River	Liao et al., 2018 [27]
Phenylobacterium	Phenylobacterium spp.	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [28]
Polynucleobacter	Polynucleobacter spp.	River	Liang et al., 2020 [26] , Perlaza et al., 2019 [22]
Proteus	P. vulgaris	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36]
Proteus	P. mirabilis	Stream	Purificação et al., 2017 [21] , Miyagi et al., 2019 [32]
Providencia	P. alcaligenes	River	Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
Pseudomonas	Pseudomonas spp.	Pond, Residual waters, River	Devarajan et al., 2015 [34] , Gromala; Neufeld; Mcconkey, 2021 [9] , Laffite et al., 2016 [8] , Leon et al., 2012 [23] , Li et al., 2019 [25] , Liang et al., 2020 [26] , Liao et al., 2018 [27] , Regina et al., 2021 [20] , Girlich; Poirel; Nordmann, 2011 [35]
	P. putida	Pond, Stream, River	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36] , Leon et al., 2012 [23] , Purificação et al., 2017 [21]
	P. aeruginosa	River	Brito et al., 2015 [17] , Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
	P. taiwanensis	Stream, River	Londono et al., 2019 [15] , Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
	P. cedrina	Pond	Harmon et al., 2019 [14]
	P. geniculata	Pond, River	Harmon et al., 2019 [14] , Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
	P. otitidis	Pond, River
	P. stutzeri	Pond	Harmon et al., 2019 [14]
	P. beteli	River	Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
	P. hibiscicola
	P. protegens
Pseudoxanthomonas	Pseudoxanthomonas spp.	River	Liang et al., 2020 [26]
Psychrobacter	Psychrobacter spp.	Pond	Gromala; Neufeld; Mcconkey, 2021 [9]
Rahnella	R. aquatilis	Stream	Miyagi et al., 2019 [32]
Raoultella	R. ornithinolytica	River	Piedra et al., 2017 [33]
Rhodobacter	Rhodobacter spp.	Pond, River	Li et al., 2019 [25] , Perlaza et al., 2019 [22] , Liao et al., 2018 [27]
Rhodococcus	Rhodococcus spp.	Pond	Corno et al., 2014 [38]
Rhodococcus	R. equi	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36]
Rhodoferax	Rhodoferax spp.	River	Liang et al., 2020 [26]
Rhodoferax	R. ferrireducens	Pond	Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Rhodoluna	Rhodoluna spp.		Xie et al., 2021 [30]
Rickettsia	Rickettsia spp.		Chu et al., 2018 [12]
Roseburia	Roseburia spp.	River	Perlaza et al., 2019 [22]
Ruminococcus	Ruminococcus Spp.		Perlaza et al., 2019 [22]
Salmonella	Salmonella Spp.		Xiao et al., 2013 [29]
Scalindua	Scalindua Spp.		Chen et al., 2019 [24]
Sediminibacterium	Sediminibacterium spp.		Liao et al., 2018 [27]
Serratia	S. rubidaea	Stream	Miyagi et al., 2019 [32]
Shewanella	Shewanella spp.	River	Liang et al., 2020 [26] , Liao et al., 2018 [27]
Shewanella	S. xiamenensis	River	Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
Sideroxydans	S. lithotrophicus	Pond	Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Sphingomonas	Sphingomonas Spp.	Pond	Leon et al., 2012 [23]
Sphingomonas	S. panni	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
Sphingopyxis	Sphingopyxis spp.	River	Liang et al., 2020 [26]
Sporacetigenium	Sporacetigenium spp.	Pond	Li et al., 2019 [25]
Staphylococcus	S. aureus	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36]
Staphylococcus	S. epidermidis	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [36]
Stenotrophomonas	S.pavanii	Stream	Londono et al., 2019 [15]
	S. maltophilia	Pond, River	Harmon et al., 2019 [14] , Girlich; Poirel; Nordmann, 2011 [35] , Tacao; Correia; henriques, 2015 [37]
	S. pavanii	Pond	Harmon et al., 2019 [14]
Streptococccus	S. agalactiae	Stream	Adelowo; Akinlabi; Fagade, 2014 [46]
Sulfuricella	S. denitrificans	Pond	Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Sulfuritalea	S. hidrogenívoros	Pond	Williams et al., 2018 [10]
Synechococcus	Synechococcus spp.	Pond, River	Xie et al., 2021 [30] , Zhang et al., 2020 [31]
Thiocapsa	Thiocapsa spp.	River	Perlaza et al., 2019 [22]
Trichococcus	Trichococcus spp.	Pond	Gromala; Neufeld; Mcconkey, 2021 [9]
Vibrio	VibRiver spp.	River	Liang et al., 2020 [25]
Vibrio	V. cholerae	River	Choi; Dunams; Jiang, 2010 [11]
Yersinia	Yersinia spp.	Pond	Chu et al., 2018 [12]

Source: Author, 2023.

However, freshwater is the primary environment in which there is a growing anthropogenic intervention, such as domestic, hospital, industrial, agricultural, and livestock effluents [2] ; since rivers, streams, and water residues are among the leading sources that have suffered from the contamination of these emerging [39] [40] .

Therefore, the continuous release of these organic compounds of anthropogenic origin has caused environmental degradation, in addition to increasingly resulting in the appearance of microorganisms [41] . These have as main characteristics high growth rates in addition to a higher metabolism, which also have particularities of being influenced by physicochemical changes and the introduction of organic, inorganic, and polluting compounds in the environment in which they inhabit [42] .

The present research carried out a systematic review in which the Asian continent presented greater microbial diversity when compared to other continents, with China being the country with the highest bacterial representation. Considering the population and development characteristics that have been taking place over time in their areas, especially urban areas [1] [43] , it is likely that these events have contributed to water pollution in freshwater environments and, consequently, greater bacterial diversity.

A point that deserves attention is that when identified in aquatic environments, these microorganisms can be used as a bioindicator of water contamination, reflecting the quality of the water, whether for bathing or drinking. An example of a bacterial species used to assess water quality is E. coli, one of the leading indicators of fecal contamination in freshwater aquatic environments, which has a strong relationship with risks of gastrointestinal diseases in humans [44] .

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a bacterium that is frequently isolated in lakes and rivers, in addition to wastewater, due to the high load of nutrients found in these environments. Recent studies give a fundamental role of water in the colonization of this microorganism in humans since these bacteria have multiple virulence factors that promote their high pathogenicity [45] .

Klebsiella pneumoniae is a microorganism that can inhabit aquatic environments, soils, plants, and sewage. This bacterium can be isolated from the oropharynx, the gastrointestinal tract of humans and mammals, and the feces of healthy individuals, besides having the ability to colonize humans asymptomatically. The most common leading infections are pneumonia, urinary tract infections, wounds, bacteremia, and meningitis [46] .

Regarding the species of the genus Aeromonas, they are found in different habitats, particularly in aquatic environments, from which it is widespread. In freshwater environments, they are mainly present in wastewater, of which some species present themselves as relevant zoonotic pathogens. Among these, A. veronii, A. caviae, and A. hydrophila have been linked to diseases in humans, especially with symptoms of diarrhea, septicemia, and soft tissue infections of wounds after exposure to water, considered an emerging threat in different environments, mainly to human health [47] .

Therefore, the contamination of pathogenic microorganisms in aquatic environments, mainly freshwater, has caused an extensive public health problem worldwide, especially concerning waterborne diseases, since many of these microorganisms are enteric and can lead to death [44] [48] .

5. Conclusions

The findings and evidence showed that the genera Pseudomonas, Aeromonas, and Escherichia and their respective species were the main microorganisms isolated, that is, they proved to be the most predominant, which indicates that these pathogens can present themselves as leading indicators of quality in freshwater environments that are being impacted.

These data support the relevance of the continuous analysis of microorganisms in freshwater aquatic environments, mainly to assess the impact on the local fauna, the dynamics of water quality, and the survival of the beings that are there, helping to monitor this ecosystem and indicating the possible risks to the population that depends directly or indirectly on these places. The data presented reinforce that these environments not only harbor but spread pathogens, representing a risk to public health when not monitored or preserved.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Cite this paper

Souza, K.S., da Silva, M.R.F., da Silva, I.P., de Araújo, L.C.A., de Sá, R.A.Q.C., Motteran, F., de Veras, B.O. and de Oliveira, M.B.M. (2023) Aquatic Microbiota: A Systematic Review. Advances in Microbiology, 13, 284-298. https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2023.136018

References1

Nguyen, T.T., et al. (2019) Implementation of a Specific Urban Water Management-Sponge City. Science of the Total Environment, 652, 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.168

García-Galán, M.J., et al. (2020) Microalgae-Based Bioremediation of Water Contaminated by Pesticides in Peri-Urban Agricultural Areas. Environmental Pollution, 265, Article ID: 114579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114579

Murray, P.R., Rosenthal, K.S. and Pfaller, M.A. (2020) Medical Microbiology E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Pintanel, S.R., Cecconello, S.T. and Centeno, L.N. (2021) Análise da correlaão entre os indicadores de saneamento básico e as doenáas de veiculaão hídrica em municípios do sul do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista Ambientale, 13, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.48180/ambientale.v13i2.292

Mello, R., et al. (2020) Challenges in Access to Water and Basic Sanitation in Brazil and Covid-19 Control. Augustus Magazine, 25, 281-293. https://doi.org/10.15202/1981896.2020v25n51p281

Amorim, C.F., de Oliveira, A.C.S., Martins, R.A. and de Oliveira Freitas, C.A. (2021) Bacteriological Analysis of Water in Drinking Fountains at Municipal Schools in Feira de Santana/BA. Research, Society and Development, 10, e40010111742. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i1.11742

Laffite, A., et al. (2016) Hospital Effluents Are One of Several Sources of Metal, Antibiotic Resistance Genes, and Bacterial Markers Disseminated in Sub-Saharan Urban Rivers. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7, Article 1128. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01128

Lockwood, C., et al. (2017) Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Evidence. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide.

Gromala, M., Neufeld, J.D. and Mcconkey, B.J. (2021) Monitoring Microbial Populations and Antibiotic Resistance Gene Enrichment Associated with Arctic Waste Stabilization Ponds. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 87, e02914-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02914-20

Arora-Williams, K., Olesen, S.W., Scandella, B.P., Delwiche, K., Spencer, S.J., Myers, E.M., Abraham, S., Sooklal, A. and Preheim, S.P. (2018) Dynamics of Microbial Populations Mediating Biogeochemical Cycling in a Freshwater Lake. Microbiome, 6, Article No. 165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0556-7

Choi, S., Dunams, D. and Jiang, S.C. (2010) Transfer of Cholera Toxin Genes from 01 to non‐01/0139 Strains by Vibriophages from California Coastal Waters. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 108, 1015-1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04502.x

Chu, B.T.T., et al. (2018) Metagenomics Reveals the Impact of Wastewater Treatment Plants on the Dispersal of Microorganisms and Genes in Aquatic Sediments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 84, e02168-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02168-17

Skwor, T., et al. (2020) Prevalence of Potentially Pathogenic Antibiotic-Resistant Aeromonas Spp. in Treated Urban Wastewater Effluents versus Recipient Riverine Populations: A 3-Year Comparative Study. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 86, e02053-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02053-19

Harmon, D.E., Miranda, O.A., McCarley, A., Eshaghian, M., Carlson, N. and Ruiz, C. (2019) Prevalence and Characterization of Carbapenem‐Resistant Bacteria in Water Bodies in the Los Angeles-Southern California Area. Microbiologyopen, 8, e00692. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.692

Londono, N., Donovan, A.R., Shi, H., Geisler, M. and Liang, Y. (2019) Effects of Environmentally Relevant Concentrations of Mixtures of TiO2, ZnO and Ag ENPs on a River Bacterial Community. Chemosphere, 230, 567-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.05.110

Maal-Bared, R., Bartlett, K.H., Bowie, W.R. and Hall, E.R. (2013) Phenotypic Antibiotic Resistance of Escherichia coli and E. coli O157 Isolated from Water, Sediment and Biofilms in an Agricultural Watershed in British Columbia. Science of the Total Environment, 443, 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.106

Brito, E.M.S., et al. (2015) Impact of Hydrocarbons, PCBs and Heavy Metals on Bacterial Communities in Lerma River, Salamanca, Mexico: Investigation of Hydrocarbon Degradation Potential. Science of the Total Environment, 521, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.098

Carvalho, F.R.S., Vazoller, R.F., Foronda, A.S. and Pellizari, V.H. (2007) Phylogenetic Study of Legionella Species in Pristine and Polluted Aquatic Samples from a Tropical Atlantic Forest Ecosystem. Current Microbiology, 55, 288-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-006-0589-1

Conte, D., Palmeiro, J.K., Bavaroski, A.A., Rodrigues, L.S., Cardozo, D., Tomaz, A.P., Camargo, J.O. and Dalla-Costa, L.M. (2021) Antimicrobial Resistance in Aeromonas Species Isolated from Aquatic Environments in Brazil. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 131, 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14965

Regina, A.L.A., et al. (2021) A Watershed Impacted by Anthropogenic Activities: Microbial Community Alterations and Reservoir of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes. Science of the Total Environment, 793, Article ID: 148552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148552

da Purificaão Junior, A.F., et al. (2017) Microbiota Sampled from a Polluted Stream in Recife-PE, Brazil and Its Importance to Public Health. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 11, 1142-1149. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2017.8577

Perlaza-Posada, C.E., et al. (2019) Bogotá River Anthropogenic Contamination Alters Microbial Communities and Promotes Spread of Antibiotic Resistance Genes. Scientific Reports, 9, Article No. 11764. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48200-6

Leon, C., Campos, V., Urrutia, R. and Mondaca, M.-A. (2012) Metabolic and Molecular Characterization of Bacterial Community Associated to Patagonian Chilean Oligotrophic-Lakes of Quaternary Glacial Origin. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 28, 1511-1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-011-0953-6

Chen, J.-S., et al. (2021) Prevalence, Virulence-Gene Profiles, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Genetic Diversity of Human Pathogenic Aeromonas spp. from Shellfish and Aquatic Environments. Environmental Pollution, 287, Article ID: 117361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117361

Li, Y., et al. (2019) The Responses of Bacterial Community and N2O Emission to Nitrogen Input in Lake Sediment: Estrogen as a Co-Pollutant. Environmental Research, 179, Article ID: 108769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108769

Liang, J., et al. (2020) Identification and Quantification of Bacterial Genomes Carrying Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Virulence Factor Genes for Aquatic Microbiological Risk Assessment. Water Research, 168, Article ID: 115160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115160

Liao, K., Bai, Y., Huo, Y., Jian, Z., Hu, W., Zhao, C. and Qu, J. (2018) Integrating Microbial Biomass, Composition and Function to Discern the Level of Anthropogenic Activity in a River Ecosystem. Environment International, 116, 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.003

Niu, A., Song, L., Xiong, Y.-H., Lu, C., Junaid, M. and Pei, D. (2019) Impact of Water Quality on the Microbial Diversity in the Surface Water along the Three Gorge Reservoir (TGR), China. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 181, 412-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.06.023

Xiao, G., et al. (2013) Occurrence and Infection Risk of Waterborne Pathogens in Wanzhou Watershed of the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 25, 1913-1924. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60241-1

Xie, G., et al. (2021) Bacterial Diversity, Community Composition and Metabolic Function in Lake Tianmuhu and Its Dammed River: Effects of Domestic Wastewater and Damming. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 213, Article ID: 112069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112069

Zhang, L., et al. (2020) Linking Bacterial Community Shifts with Changes in the Dissolved Organic Matter Pool in a Eutrophic Lake. Science of the Total Environment, 719, Article ID: 137387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137387

Miyagi, K. and Hirai, I. (2019) A Survey of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Environmental Water in Okinawa Prefecture of Japan and Relationship with Indicator Organisms. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 7697-7710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04189-z

Piedra-Carrasco, N., et al. (2017) Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae Recovered from a Spanish River Ecosystem. PLOS ONE, 12, e0175246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175246

Devarajan, N., et al. (2015) Accumulation of Clinically Relevant Antibiotic-Resistance Genes, Bacterial Load, and Metals in Freshwater Lake Sediments in Central Europe. Environmental Science & Technology, 49, 6528-6537,. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01031

Girlich, D., Poirel, L. and Nordmann, P. (2011) Diversity of Clavulanic Acid-Inhibited Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases in Aeromonas spp. from the Seine River, Paris, France. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 55, 1256-1261. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00921-10

Adelowo, O.O., Akinlabi, I.A. and Fagade, O.E. (2012) Environmental Impact assessment of Attenda Abattoir, Ogbomoso Southwestern Nigeria on Surface and Groundwater Quality Using Geo-Electrical Imaging and Microbiological Analysis. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184, 4565-4574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2285-2

Tacao, M., Correia, A. and Henriques, I.S. (2015) Low Prevalence of Carbapenem-Resistant Bacteria in River Water: Resistance Is Mostly Related to Intrinsic Mechanisms. Microbial Drug Resistance, 21, 497-506. https://doi.org/10.1089/mdr.2015.0072

Corno, G., et al. (2014) Antibiotics Promote Aggregation within Aquatic Bacterial Communities. Frontiers in Microbiology, 5, Article 297. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00297

de Araújo, M.C. and de Oliveira, M.B.M. (2013) Monitoring the Water Quality of a Stream at the Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil. Environment & Water Magazine, 8, 247-257. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.1192

Giebu&lstrok;towicz, J., et al. (2018) Occurrence of Antimicrobial Agents, Drug-Resistant Bacteria, and Genes in the Sewage-Impacted Vistula River (Poland). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 5788-5807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0861-x

Resende, J.A., da Silva, V.L. and Diniz, C.G. (2020) Aquatic Environments in the One Health Context: Modulating the Antimicrobial Resistance Phenomenon. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, 32, e102. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2179-975x4719

Mareckova, M.S., et al. (2020) Expanding Ecological Assessment by Integrating Microorganisms into Routine Freshwater Biomonitoring. Water Research, 191, Article ID: 116767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116767

Cao, J., et al. (2020) A Critical Review of the Appearance of Black-Odorous Waterbodies in China and Treatment Methods. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 385, Article ID: 121511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121511

Jankoski, P.R., et al. (2018) Qualidade microbiológica da água da área de preservaão ambiental: Fazenda Guajuviras-Canoas (RS). Nature and Conservation, 11, 13-21. https://doi.org/10.6008/CBPC2318-2881.2018.002.0002

Souza, I., et al. (2019) Comparative Analysis of Virulence Factors of Clinical and Environmental Isolates of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. Colloquium Vitae, 41-50.

Holt, K.E., et al. (2015) Genomic analysis of Diversity, Population Structure, Virulence, ans Antimicrobial Resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae, na urgente Threat to Public Health. PNAS, 112, E3574-E3581. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501049112

Chen, L., et al. (2019) Anammox Response to Natural and Anthropogenic Impacts over the Yangtze River. Science of the Total Environment, 665, 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.096

Keller, R., Justino, J.F. and Cassini, S.T. (2013) Assessment of Water and Seafood Microbiology Quality in a Mangrove Region in Vitória, Brazil. Journal of Water and Health, Londres, 11, 573-580. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2013.245