| Item | T1 (first) | T2 (second) | Change | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methanogens (all routes) | 6 genomes, 8.0 % | 7 genomes, 4.2 % | decreased | note |
| Acetate route (acetate-consuming methanogens) | none | Methanosarcina flavescens, 0.14 % | detected at T2 | attention |
| H₂/CO₂ route (hydrogen-consuming methanogens) | 5 genomes, 7.9 % | 7 genomes, 4.2 % | decreased | note |
| Methyl route (methyl-consuming methanogens) | 1 genome, 0.18 % | 1 genome, 0.14 % | no change | ok |
| Cellulose breakdown (genomes carrying the enzymes) | 22 genomes, 14.1 % | 18 genomes, 8.2 % | decreased | note |
| Protein breakdown (genomes carrying the enzymes) | 71 genomes, 41.4 % | 71 genomes, 40.4 % | no change | ok |
| Propionate pathway (genomes carrying it) | 19 genomes, 11.0 % | 14 genomes, 12.0 % | no change | ok |
| Ammonia release from ethanolamine (genomes carrying the pathway) | 2 genomes, 0.84 % | 1 genome, 0.12 % | decreased | ok |
| Butyrate oxidation | — | — | — | not assessed |
| Ethanol fermentation | — | — | — | not assessed |
| Lactate fermentation | — | — | — | not assessed |
| Direct interspecies electron transfer | — | — | — | not assessed |
| Energy conservation | — | — | — | not assessed |
Each value gives the number of genomes and their share of reads. Share of reads = the part of the mapped reads that the genomes make up. This report shows a change only when it is at least 1 percentage point and at least 1.5-fold. Genomes below 0.1 % of reads are not in this report. Therefore "detected at T2" means: below that cutoff at T1, or absent at T1. ok = nothing unusual. note = thin, present or changed, not a fault by itself: the one-page summary names the measurement to check. attention = a route is missing or very weak. not assessed = no reliable marker, not zero.
These suggestions come from the genes that the community carries. They are not operating instructions. The plant operator has the process data and makes the decisions on feed, load and additives. Magrittr OÜ is not responsible for those decisions or their results.
Fixed rules make these suggestions from the result tables. The cheapest action comes first. Each line shows the finding that caused it.
| T1 | T2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Feed | 72 % maize silage, 28 % pig manure | 67 % maize silage, 33 % pig manure |
| Retention time (average days the material stays in the reactor) | 55 d | 81 d |
| Feed NH₄⁺-N | 1.06 g/kg | 1.25 g/kg |
| Feed acetate · total VFA | 3.4 · 4.2 g/kg | 4.0 · 4.9 g/kg |
| Genomes scored (share of reads) | 105 (90.6 %) | 115 (89.5 %) |
The two samples come from two different studies. Part of the change may come from different DNA extraction and sequencing. A client series is sampled and processed the same way every time.
| Genome | Route | T1 | T2 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methanoculleus thermohydrogenotrophicum | H₂/CO₂ | 3.80 % | 0.60 % | decreased |
| Methanoculleus sp. | H₂/CO₂ | 2.92 % | 1.22 % | decreased |
| Methanoculleus bourgensis | H₂/CO₂ | 0.79 % | 1.63 % | below threshold |
| Methanosarcina flavescens | acetate · H₂/CO₂ · methyl | — | 0.1 % | new |
| 3 other H₂/CO₂ methanogens | H₂/CO₂ | < 0.5 % | < 0.5 % | below floor |
A route is reported only if a genome has the mcrA gene and the genes of that route. For the acetate route the genome must also belong to a known acetate-consuming group.
30 of 59 genomes above 0.5 % changed. The largest are shown. The full list is in genomes_over_time.tsv.
The new genomes break down proteins and amino acids (Cloacimonadota, Fusobacteriota, Saccharofermentanales). This matches the higher ammonium in the feed.
| Capacity | T1 genomes | share | T2 genomes | share | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose and hemicellulose | 22 | 14.1 % | 18 | 8.2 % | decreased |
| of which anchored (built to work outside the cell) | 8 | 3.2 % | 9 | 2.9 % | no change |
| Lipids | 7 | 2.3 % | 11 | 3.9 % | increased |
| Proteins | 71 | 41.4 % | 71 | 40.4 % | no change |
| Propionate pathway | 19 | 11.0 % | 14 | 12.0 % | no change |
| Ammonia release (ethanolamine) | 2 | 0.84 % | 1 | 0.12 % | below threshold |
On maize silage, cellulose breakdown sets the rate. If gas yield per tonne of silage has decreased too, consider a longer retention time or feed pretreatment.
Five of the 20 panel modules have no reliable marker. This report shows them as not assessed, never as zero. Glycolysis is not scored either, for a different reason: it is assumed present in every genome. That is not "we could not tell". It is "this would tell you nothing".
| Module | Why it is not scored | What it would have told you |
|---|---|---|
| Butyrate oxidation (syntrophic) | No licence-clean detector for bcd and crt: the public HMM families are superfamily-wide and would match ordinary fatty-acid metabolism. | Whether butyrate can be cleared by partner bacteria. |
| Ethanol fermentation | Only accessory-tier markers are curated, and scoring reads the core tier. | Which minor acid routes feed the methanogens. |
| Lactate fermentation | Only accessory-tier markers are curated, and scoring reads the core tier. | Which minor acid routes feed the methanogens. |
| Direct interspecies electron transfer | No core tier defined yet. | Whether conductive partnerships between species are present. |
| Energy conservation (ATP synthase, Ech, Fpo) | No core tier defined yet. | Whether energy-saving complexes are present. |
| Glycolysis | Assumed present by design: central metabolism, not a discriminating marker. | Nothing a digester operator would act on. |
Genomes and abundances: Campanaro et al. 2020, Biotechnol Biofuels 13:25 (CC BY), NCBI PRJNA602310. Genomes at ≥ 0.1 % of reads in each sample. Taxonomy: GTDB-Tk 2.7.1, GTDB release 232. Panel: digestome v0, with 86 marker genes in 20 modules. The HMMs come from NCBIfam and Pfam. The reactions come from Rhea. The panel does not use KEGG, MetaCyc, CAZy, dbCAN, MEROPS or SignalP. Change rule: at least 1 percentage point and at least 1.5-fold. Genome floor: 0.5 %. The scripts in the digestome repository make every number again from the public inputs. Literature behind the suggestions. Banks CJ et al. (2012) Bioresour Technol 104:127. Demirel B, Scherer P (2011) Biomass Bioenergy 35:992. Handbooks (they support the lever and its direction; none bases a decision on the community): Drosg B (2013) Process monitoring in biogas plants. IEA Bioenergy Task 37. FNR (2010) Guide to Biogas: From production to use. 5th ed., English. Schnürer A, Jarvis Å (2018) Microbiology of the biogas process. SLU.