Next Article in Journal
Unveiling the Antibacterial Potential of Melaleuca cajuputi Essential Oils Against MRSA: Integrating In Vitro Efficacy and In Silico Mechanistic Insights
Previous Article in Journal
Advanced Sequencing Approaches for the Subgingival Microbiome: Technology Selection, Quality Control, and Best Practices in Periodontal Research
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Hot Springs as Reservoirs of Valuable Microbes, Metabolites, and Minerals with Ecological, Biotechnological and Bioeconomic Perspectives

1
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Udayana University, Jimbaran, Badung 80361, Indonesia
2
Department of Biosciences, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat 395007, India
3
Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Udayana University, Jimbaran, Badung 80361, Indonesia
4
Shree Ramkrishna Institutes of Computer Education & Applied Sciences, Sarvajanik University, Surat 395001, India
5
Department of Life Sciences, Bhakta Kavi Narsinh Mehta University, Junagadh 362263, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Bacteria 2026, 5(1), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria5010012
Submission received: 31 December 2025 / Revised: 22 January 2026 / Accepted: 9 February 2026 / Published: 12 February 2026

Abstract

Hot springs represent unique geothermal ecosystems where extreme physicochemical conditions intersect with remarkable microbial diversity and metabolic innovation. These natural laboratories harbor specialized communities of thermophilic and hyperthermophilic microorganisms that have evolved exceptional adaptations to elevated temperatures, extreme pH, and high salinity. This review synthesizes current understanding of hot spring systems as multifunctional natural resources, examining their roles in fundamental microbiology, biotechnology, and sustainable development. We explore the ecological principles governing microbial community assembly, the taxonomic and functional diversity of prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms, and the genomic mechanisms underlying thermophilic adaptation. Hot springs yield enzymes revolutionizing molecular biology and industrial catalysis, bioactive metabolites with pharmaceutical potential, and novel bioremediation capabilities including plastic degradation. Beyond biological significance, these systems contain valuable minerals and rare earth elements, supporting an emerging bioeconomy integrating wellness tourism, bioprospecting, and sustainable resource extraction. However, critical knowledge gaps remain regarding viral ecology, horizontal gene transfer, eukaryotic diversity, and climate change impacts. We emphasize that hot springs merit renewed interdisciplinary attention as model systems for understanding extremophile physiology, early life evolution, and the development of nature-based biotechnological solutions. Realizing their full potential requires balanced management strategies that preserve ecosystem integrity while enabling responsible utilization of these irreplaceable geobiological resources.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Hot Springs as Natural Laboratories

Hot springs are geothermal features where subsurface fluids emerge at temperatures exceeding 50 °C or at least 10 °C above mean annual air temperature [1]. These ecosystems function as accessible natural laboratories for studying life under extreme conditions, offering unique advantages over other extreme environments such as deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Their accessibility, visible microbial communities, and well-defined physicochemical gradients make hot springs ideal model systems for investigating extremophile physiology, community ecology and metabolic innovation [2,3].
Globally, over 15,000 documented hot springs occur concentrated along tectonic plate boundaries, particularly the Pacific Ring of Fire and Alpine-Himalayan belt [4]. Despite their abundance, hot springs remain undersampled relative to their scientific importance. Taxonomic discovery rates have increased from approximately 8 novel thermophilic species annually during 2000–2010 to approximately 20 species annually during 2010–2024, with this accelerating trend continuing through 2025 as cultivation-independent metagenomic approaches reveal vast hidden diversity [5,6].
A landmark 2025 metagenomic study recovered nearly 3000 archaeal genomes from 152 terrestrial geothermal springs, spanning 12 phyla, with 19% representing entirely new taxa and 70% lacking formal nomenclature [6]. This massive genomic dataset confirms that these ecosystems harbor immense undiscovered microbial diversity with profound implications for understanding extremophile evolution, metabolic innovation, and biotechnological potential [7].

1.2. Evolutionary and Economic Significance

The study of hot spring microbiomes extends beyond contemporary ecology to questions of deep evolutionary significance. Early life forms are hypothesized to have been hyperthermophiles that colonized hydrothermal environments approximately 3.8–4.0 billion years ago [8,9]. The phylogenetic positioning of thermophilic lineages near the roots of both bacterial and archaeal domains supports this hypothesis, suggesting that thermophily represents an ancestral trait rather than a derived adaptation. Understanding thermophilic adaptation mechanisms thus illuminates both the origins of life on Earth and potential forms of life on other planetary bodies with geothermal activity [7].
While hot springs serve as windows into early Earth and potential extraterrestrial life, they also function as contemporary resources supporting human health and economic development. The global thermal springs tourism market, valued at USD 57.27 billion in 2024, is projected to reach USD 130.78 billion by 2030, representing a robust compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.8% from 2025 to 2030 [10]. This substantial growth is driven by post-pandemic demand for natural healing experiences, increasing consumer awareness of health benefits, and growing preference for wellness-focused travel. The Asia-Pacific region, accounting for 46.83% of global revenues in 2023, leads market growth due to the cultural significance of hot springs in countries such as Japan, China, and South Korea. Europe is projected to grow at a CAGR of 14.0% from 2024 to 2030, driven by its established thermal bath culture and spa heritage. As of 2024, there are 35,099 thermal and mineral springs establishments across 130 countries, with 140-plus new projects in the pipeline, reflecting strong 18% annual growth projections through 2025 [11]. This economic significance underscores the urgent need for science-based management frameworks that preserve microbial diversity and ecosystem integrity while enabling sustainable utilization.
This review synthesizes current knowledge of hot springs as integrated natural resource systems at the intersection of microbiology, geochemistry, biotechnology, and economics. We address geological and geochemical foundations; ecological principles governing microbial community assembly; taxonomic diversity of prokaryotic and eukaryotic communities; biotechnological applications; economic resources, including minerals and rare earth elements; and critical knowledge gaps and research priorities. We emphasize cultivation-independent genomic approaches that are revolutionizing our understanding of hot spring microbial diversity and functional potential.
Figure 1. Two common types of natural and man-made hot springs used for leisure or health therapy are schematically represented on the scale of minerals and beneficial microorganisms for human health.
Figure 1. Two common types of natural and man-made hot springs used for leisure or health therapy are schematically represented on the scale of minerals and beneficial microorganisms for human health.
Bacteria 05 00012 g001

2. Geological and Geochemical Foundations

2.1. Formation Mechanisms and Energy Sources

Hot springs form where geothermally heated subsurface fluids reach Earth’s surface through permeable fracture networks and faults [12]. The fundamental process begins with meteoric water penetrating deep into Earth’s crust. In tectonically active regions, this water is heated by proximity to magmatic bodies or elevated geothermal gradients [13]. These fluids, reaching temperatures of 150–350 °C at depth, undergo prolonged interaction with host rocks under elevated temperature and pressure, dissolving minerals through thermally enhanced hydrolysis (Figure 1) [14].
This geothermal circulation creates distinctive aqueous chemical environments laden with dissolved constituents that both sustain microbial life and record geological processes. The emergent fluids carry electron donors, including hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and ferrous iron; electron acceptors, including sulfate and nitrate; essential nutrients, including phosphate and trace metals; and dissolved gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and noble gases [15]. Upon reaching the surface, rapid cooling, degassing, atmospheric mixing, and biological activity drive mineral precipitation, creating characteristic terraces, pools, and fumaroles.
Hot springs generate abundant thermodynamic disequilibrium through continuous delivery of reduced compounds into oxidizing surface environments [16]. Thermophilic microorganisms harness diverse energy sources: phototrophy in photic zones below approximately 73 °C, where cyanobacteria perform oxygenic photosynthesis [17]; aerobic chemolithotrophy, where hydrogen oxidation, sulfide oxidation, and iron oxidation support chemolithoautotrophic communities [18]; anaerobic respiration utilizing alternative electron acceptors; and fermentation of organic matter. This metabolic diversity creates tightly coupled biogeochemical cycles where products of one metabolic guild become substrates for others, establishing complex food webs fundamentally powered by geothermal energy rather than solar radiation [19].

2.2. Chemical Diversity and Classification

Hot spring chemistry exhibits remarkable diversity controlled by source fluid composition, water-rock interaction conditions, host rock mineralogy, and near-surface processes. The most widely applied geochemical classification recognizes four principal types: neutral-chloride springs originating from deep circulation systems with chloride-rich waters; acid-sulfate springs where volcanic gases dissolve in shallow groundwater producing extremely acidic conditions (pH < 3); acid-sulfate-chloride springs representing hybrid systems; and bicarbonate springs developing in peripheral zones with shallow circulation [20,21].
Each geochemical type presents unique selective pressures that filter microbial colonization, resulting in chemically predictable community assemblages. Acidic hot springs impose extreme selective pressure through low pH, high concentrations of dissolved metals, and limited nutrient availability, typically supporting low-diversity communities dominated by archaea of the order Sulfolobales and acidophilic bacteria, including Acidithiobacillus [22]. Neutral to alkaline springs harbor substantially higher bacterial diversity spanning multiple phyla, including Aquificae, Deinococcus-Thermus, Chloroflexi, and Proteobacteria [23,24].

2.3. Geothermal Gases and Biogeochemical Connections

Gases dissolved in geothermal fluids exsolve upon pressure reduction during ascent, creating visible fumaroles and influencing dissolved gas content. Gas composition provides critical information on subsurface processes [25]. Major gases include nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, hydrogen, helium, argon, and ammonia [26]. Noble gases provide powerful tracers for subsurface processes, while carbon and sulfur isotopes distinguish magmatic, thermogenic, and biogenic sources [27].
Geothermal gases fuel chemolithoautotrophic primary production, sustaining hot spring ecosystems independent of photosynthesis. Hydrogen oxidation, sulfide oxidation, and methanogenesis establish geochemical-biological linkages coupling deep-Earth processes to surface ecosystem functioning, demonstrating that hot spring food webs are fundamentally supported by geothermal energy rather than solar radiation [18,28].

3. Ecological Organization and Community Assembly

3.1. Microbial Life in Hot Springs

The 3.5-billion-year-old Archean fossil hot spring stromatolites of Western Australia’s Pilbara region exemplify the origin of microbial life from geothermal environments [29,30]. Geothermal activity dissolves minerals through heat and pressure, creating a unique chemical milieu enriched with sulfur, iron, and nitrogen—essential nutrients providing redox energy for microbial growth and metabolism [31]. Hot springs fulfill universal life attributes: thermodynamic disequilibrium utilization, covalently bonded molecules (N, P, O, S), liquid solvent availability, and capacity for Darwinian evolution [32,33] (Figure 2). Three essential niches—biofilms, water column, and sediments—harbor nutritionally distinct microbiota. Biofilms exhibit sulfur-related functions and multilayered photosynthetic communities; water contains heavy metal-oxidizing bacteria dependent on dissolved organic matter; sediments harbor thermophilic archaea and eukaryotes adapted to low-oxygen, high-pressure conditions [34,35,36]. This niche interplay creates diverse, interdependent microbial communities [37] (Figure 2).

3.2. Spatial Structure and Habitat Types

Hot spring microbial communities exhibit pronounced spatial organization driven by physicochemical gradients and biological interactions. Three primary habitat types host distinct microbiota: biofilms, water column communities, and sediments (Figure 3) [38].
Biofilms represent the most biomass-rich habitat, consisting of stratified microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). These self-organized structures range from less than 1 mm to greater than 10 cm in thickness, depending on conditions. In photic zones, cyanobacterial phototrophs dominate surface layers, performing oxygenic photosynthesis that generates organic carbon and molecular oxygen [38]. Deeper strata harbor chemolithotrophs oxidizing reduced inorganic compounds and heterotrophs consuming organic matter. The physical structure creates microenvironments with steep gradients in oxygen concentration, pH, and redox potential across millimeter scales, enabling coexistence of metabolically incompatible organisms, obligate aerobes and obligate anaerobes within the same macroscopic structure [39].
Groundbreaking studies from Yellowstone National Park published in January 2025 revealed that cyanobacterial Synechococcus species and filamentous Chloroflexus species actively cooperate to enhance community fitness through interspecies behavioral coordination [40]. Using a binary consortium model with Synechococcus OS-B′ and Chloroflexus MS-CIW-1 isolated from hot spring mats, researchers demonstrated that these distantly related microbes exhibit cooperative motility toward light, enhanced colonization capabilities, and construction of more robust biofilm structures compared to either species alone. Individual species displayed distinct behaviors: Chloroflexus MS-CIW-1 formed bundles of filaments moving in all directions with no directional light bias, while Synechococcus OS-B′ exhibited positive phototaxis but was slightly less motile. When combined, the consortium moved further distances than either species individually and formed ordered arrays where both species aligned with the light source. This cooperative behavior was abolished when a nonmotile pilB mutant of Synechococcus OS-B′ was used, confirming the essential role of cyanobacterial motility in driving collective behavior. Electron microscopy revealed close interspecies physical associations, and the binary consortium produced more adherent biofilms than individual species, demonstrating that physical interactions and behavioral coordination between taxonomically distant microbes enhance survival and ecosystem functioning. This discovery challenges the traditional view of hot spring microbial mats as static assemblages of independently functioning cells competing for resources, revealing instead dynamic cooperative systems where metabolite exchange, physical interactions, and coordinated motility between evolutionarily divergent organisms enhance niche colonization and biofilm robustness [41].
Water column communities comprise planktonic microorganisms exhibiting markedly lower biomass compared to biofilms but maintaining distinct phylogenetic composition [42,43]. These free-living populations occupy the pelagic zone of hot spring pools and channels, experiencing different selective pressures than biofilm-associated microbes. Water column communities include chemolithoautotrophic bacteria oxidizing dissolved reduced compounds (hydrogen, sulfide, ferrous iron) as well as heterotrophic bacteria metabolizing dissolved organic carbon released from biofilms or produced by planktonic phototrophs in moderate-temperature zones [44]. The taxonomic composition of water column communities differs substantially from adjacent biofilm populations, with enrichment of motile, fast-growing taxa adapted to nutrient acquisition in dilute aqueous environments [42,45]. These planktonic populations serve as dispersal agents for colonization of new surfaces and play critical roles in biogeochemical cycling by processing dissolved chemical species in the water column before they reach biofilm surfaces [46].
Sediments accumulate at pool bottoms, creating redox stratification with oxic surface layers overlying anoxic zones that harbor sulfate-reducing bacteria, methanogens, and fermentative bacteria [47]. Sediment communities perform critical ecosystem functions, including organic matter decomposition, nutrient regeneration, and terminal electron-accepting processes [48]. The upper sediment layers (0–2 mm) contain aerobic heterotrophs and facultative anaerobes, while deeper zones (>2 mm) become progressively more reducing, supporting obligate anaerobes that conduct sulfate reduction, methanogenesis, and fermentation [49]. Thermophilic archaea dominate the deepest, hottest sediment zones, where temperatures may exceed water column temperatures by 5–15 °C due to conductive heating from below. Eukaryotic thermophiles, including thermotolerant fungi and protists, also colonize sediments, where they function as decomposers and grazers [50]. Sediment communities exhibit the highest phylogenetic diversity of the three habitats, reflecting the multitude of microniches created by vertical chemical gradients, particle surfaces, and microbial microcolonies [51]. The sediments serve as a reservoir for dormant cells and genetic diversity, with some thermophiles existing in spore or cyst forms that can persist for extended periods. Biogeochemical cycling in sediments is tightly coupled to overlying water chemistry and biofilm productivity, with organic matter produced by photoautotrophs and chemoautotrophs in biofilms ultimately mineralized in sediments, completing nutrient cycles and regenerating electron acceptors for chemolithotrophic metabolism [52].
The interplay between these three habitat types creates functionally integrated ecosystems. Organic matter produced by photoautotrophs in biofilms is consumed by heterotrophs within biofilms, released as dissolved organic carbon to water columns, and ultimately deposited in sediments, where it fuels anaerobic food webs [53]. Reduced compounds produced by anaerobic sediment communities (sulfide, methane, ammonium) diffuse upward to oxic zones where they are oxidized by chemolithotrophs, closing biogeochemical cycles [54]. This spatial organization and functional integration create diverse, interdependent microbial communities where ecological processes at one spatial scale influence community structure and function at adjacent scales [55].

3.3. Environmental Drivers of Community Composition

Microbial community composition responds to three primary environmental gradients: temperature, pH, and salinity that act as hierarchical filters on community assembly. Temperature exerts the strongest selective pressure. Mesophilic zones below 40 °C are dominated by conventional soil and aquatic bacteria. Thermophilic zones (40–75 °C) host specialized thermophiles, while hyperthermophilic zones above 75 °C are exclusively inhabited by archaea and the most thermally adapted bacteria [56,57]. This temperature-driven taxonomic turnover reflects fundamental thermodynamic constraints on protein stability, membrane fluidity, and nucleic acid structure.
pH shapes community composition through multiple mechanisms: direct physiological stress on cellular membranes and proteins; modulation of metal speciation and bioavailability; and alteration of transmembrane electrochemical gradients affecting energy metabolism. Acidic hot springs with pH below 3 typically support low-diversity, specialist-dominated communities composed of acidophilic archaea and bacteria that have evolved specialized proton-pumping mechanisms [58,59]. Neutral to alkaline springs harbor substantially higher bacterial diversity, reflecting reduced selective pressure and broader physiological compatibility [23].
Salinity creates osmotic stress requiring specialized adaptations, including synthesis of compatible solutes and accumulation of potassium ions [60]. Thermophiles accumulate unusual compatible solutes such as di-myo-inositol-phosphate and mannosylglycerate in response to osmotic stress, enabling them to maintain cellular function under combined thermal and osmotic challenges.
This ecological organization—spanning multiple spatial scales, metabolic guilds, and trophic levels creates multifunctional systems that support both fundamental research and applied innovation. The biofilms that serve as model systems for microbial cooperation also produce enzymes with industrial value. The chemolithoautotrophs that reveal principles of energy metabolism also remediate toxic pollutants. Understanding these fundamental ecological principles is thus inseparable from realizing hot springs’ biotechnological potential.

4. Prokaryotic Diversity and Thermophilic Adaptations

4.1. Classification and Thermo-Adaptation Mechanisms

Thermophilic prokaryotes are classified based on growth temperature ranges (Figure 4): facultative thermophiles capable of growth at both mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures (25–50 °C); moderate thermophiles with optimal growth at 40–70 °C; obligate thermophiles requiring temperatures of 50–80 °C; and hyperthermophiles growing optimally at 65–113 °C [8]. The current temperature record holder is Methanopyrus kandleri strain 116, an anaerobic methanogen isolated from deep-sea hydrothermal sediments that grows at 122 °C [61], approaching the theoretical upper temperature limit for life estimated at 130–150 °C based on thermodynamic constraints on protein stability and the hydrolysis of key biological molecules.
Survival at extreme temperatures requires coordinated molecular adaptations across all cellular systems. Figure 5 illustrates how these six major adaptation categories—(A) genomic features, (B) proteomic modifications, (C) RNA stabilization, (D) membrane composition, (E) molecular chaperones, and (F) DNA repair pathways—are coordinated through integrated regulatory networks. This multidimensional regulatory system enables maintenance of cellular homeostasis under conditions that would denature most proteins within seconds, representing one of the most remarkable examples of biological adaptation to extreme environments. These adaptations operate at multiple biological scales and are integrated through complex regulatory networks:
Genomic Adaptations: Thermophile genomes exhibit structural features enhancing DNA stability, including reverse gyrase—a unique topoisomerase that introduces positive supercoils (overwound DNA structure) to prevent thermal denaturation [62]—DNA-binding proteins that compact chromosomes and protect DNA from thermal damage [63,64], and optimized codon usage favoring thermally stable tRNAs. While elevated genomic GC content has been associated with thermophily in some lineages [65], this feature is not universal across all thermophiles [66]. For instance, the hyperthermophile Pyrococcus furiosus, which grows optimally at 100 °C [67], possesses a genomic GC content of only 41% [68]. This exception demonstrates that thermostability results from coordinated multi-level adaptations rather than relying on any single mechanism such as GC content elevation [69]. The interplay of reverse gyrase activity, DNA-binding proteins [70], enhanced repair systems, and structural modifications to proteins, membranes, and RNAs collectively enables survival at extreme temperatures, with different thermophilic lineages emphasizing different combinations of these mechanisms based on their evolutionary history and specific environmental conditions [71].
Proteomic Adaptations: Thermostable proteins resist thermal denaturation through multiple structural modifications: increased hydrophobic amino acid content in protein cores that strengthens hydrophobic interactions; enhanced networks of ion pairs (salt bridges) on protein surfaces that stabilize tertiary structure; shorter and more rigid loop regions that reduce conformational flexibility; increased proline content that restricts backbone mobility; and oligomerization to form multimeric complexes with enhanced thermal stability [72,73]. These modifications work synergistically to maintain protein structure and catalytic activity at temperatures that would denature mesophilic proteins within seconds [74].
RNA Modifications: Ribosomal RNAs and transfer RNAs contain extensive post-transcriptional modifications, including pseudouridines and methylations that enhance thermal stability [75,76]. Thermophiles also exhibit enhanced secondary structure in RNAs through increased base pairing, creating more stable RNA conformations resistant to thermal denaturation [77].
Membrane Adaptations: Archaeal thermophiles employ ether-linked lipids—which exhibit superior chemical stability compared to the ester-linked lipids of bacteria—while hyperthermophiles utilize tetraether lipids that span the entire membrane as monolayer structures, eliminating the fluid bilayer that would become unstable at extreme temperatures [78,79,80]. Bacterial thermophiles increase membrane fatty acid saturation and adjust fatty acid chain length to maintain optimal membrane fluidity [81].
Molecular Chaperones: Heat shock proteins, including Hsp70 and Hsp90 families, are constitutively expressed at high levels in thermophiles, providing continuous protein quality control by assisting in proper folding, preventing aggregation, and refolding damaged proteins [82,83]. This constitutive expression contrasts with mesophiles, which only upregulate heat shock proteins under stress conditions [84].
DNA Repair Pathways: Enhanced DNA repair systems operate with exceptional efficiency to counteract the accelerated rates of spontaneous DNA damage (depurination, deamination, strand breaks) that occur at elevated temperatures [85,86]. Thermophiles possess highly efficient base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, and SOS response systems that rapidly detect and repair DNA lesions [87,88,89].
Compatible Solutes: Thermophiles accumulate unusual compatible solutes such as di-myo-inositol-phosphate, mannosylglycerate, and diglycerol phosphate in response to both thermal and osmotic stress [90,91,92]. These organic solutes stabilize proteins through preferential exclusion mechanisms, maintain cellular hydration, and enable growth under combined high temperature and high salinity conditions common in many geothermal environments [93,94].
This multidimensional regulatory network—spanning genome architecture, protein engineering, RNA stability, membrane composition, protein quality control, DNA maintenance, and osmotic adaptation—enables maintenance of cellular homeostasis under conditions that would denature most proteins, melt DNA, and disrupt membranes within seconds [95,96,97]. The evolutionary convergence of these diverse mechanisms across phylogenetically distant thermophilic lineages demonstrates the profound selective pressure imposed by high-temperature environments and the remarkable plasticity of cellular biochemistry in responding to extreme thermal stress [98,99].
However, universal adaptation mechanisms may not be observed; adaptation mechanisms are usually associated with species and their habitats. In many cases, the cell undergoes global physiological changes, thereby achieving survival at elevated temperatures [100,101].
Figure 5. Multi-level diagram showing six adaptation categories coordinated through omics networks: genomic adaptations including elevated GC content and codon optimization; proteomic adaptations including amino acid substitutions, disulfide bonds, and oligomerization; RNA modifications including rRNA modifications and enhanced secondary structure; lipid adaptations including archaeal ether lipids, saturation, and membrane composition; cellular chaperones including heat shock proteins Hsp70/90; and DNA repair pathways including SOS response and nucleotide excision repair. Arrows indicate coordinated regulation across adaptation levels.
Figure 5. Multi-level diagram showing six adaptation categories coordinated through omics networks: genomic adaptations including elevated GC content and codon optimization; proteomic adaptations including amino acid substitutions, disulfide bonds, and oligomerization; RNA modifications including rRNA modifications and enhanced secondary structure; lipid adaptations including archaeal ether lipids, saturation, and membrane composition; cellular chaperones including heat shock proteins Hsp70/90; and DNA repair pathways including SOS response and nucleotide excision repair. Arrows indicate coordinated regulation across adaptation levels.
Bacteria 05 00012 g005
Archaeal thermophiles employ ether-linked lipids that provide superior chemical stability, while tetraether lipids spanning the entire membrane as monolayers characterize hyperthermophiles [102]. Heat shock proteins are constitutively expressed at high levels, DNA repair systems operate with exceptional efficiency, and compatible solutes stabilize proteins and maintain cellular hydration [60,103]. This multidimensional regulatory network enables maintenance of cellular homeostasis under conditions that would denature most proteins within seconds.

4.2. Bacterial and Archaeal Diversity

Having examined the molecular mechanisms enabling thermophily, we now turn to the question of how many thermophilic lineages have evolved these adaptations and where they occur across the tree of life. The diversity of thermophilic prokaryotes has only recently become apparent through cultivation-independent approaches that bypass the limitations of traditional culturing.
Hot spring bacterial diversity has been revolutionized by cultivation-independent metagenomics, revealing that less than 1% of hot spring bacteria are readily cultivable using standard techniques [104]. Between 2015–2025, an average of 18–20 novel thermophilic bacterial species has been formally described annually, confirming that hot springs remain significantly undersampled reservoirs of microbial diversity. This accelerating discovery rate reflects both improved cultivation techniques and the widespread adoption of cultivation-independent metagenomic approaches that reveal the vast uncultured majority of thermophilic bacteria [105].
Key bacterial phyla include Aquificae, comprising obligate chemolithoautotrophs oxidizing hydrogen and sulfur; Deinococcus-Thermus, including the biotechnologically significant genus Thermus; Chloroflexi, ubiquitous in biofilms; Firmicutes spanning diverse metabolisms; and thermophilic representatives of Proteobacteria [7,106,107]. Recent discoveries include Thermomonas species from Asian geothermal systems, Sporanaerobium hydrogeniformans producing hydrogen gas, and Thermus parvatiensis, reinforcing Thermus as a prolific source of thermostable enzymes [108,109]. The extensive prokaryotic diversity documented above represents only part of hot spring microbial communities [110,111]. While archaea and bacteria dominate environments above 70 °C, eukaryotic microorganisms become increasingly abundant and functionally important at lower temperatures, performing critical roles as grazers, decomposers, and primary producers that shape ecosystem structure and nutrient cycling (Table 1).
The following tables present novel thermophilic and hyperthermophilic prokaryotes described since 2002, selected based on the following criteria: (i) formal taxonomic description with validly published names, (ii) isolation from terrestrial hot springs, (iii) representation of phylogenetic and metabolic diversity, and (iv) availability of comprehensive physiological characterization. The temporal scope reflects the acceleration of thermophile discovery following development of molecular phylogenetic and metagenomic methods. Classic thermophiles described before 2008 are included when they represent type species of genera or exhibit unique metabolic characteristics relevant to the biotechnological applications.
Archaea exhibit exceptional phylogenetic and metabolic diversity, occupying ecological niches across temperature ranges of 50–122 °C and pH values from 0 to 10 [8,135]. The phylum Thermoproteota dominates acidic, high-temperature springs with orders Sulfolobales and Desulfurococcales [136]. Euryarchaeota encompasses methanogens, thermoacidophilic archaea, and halophilic thermophiles [137]. Archaeal abundance relative to bacteria varies dramatically with environmental conditions, ranging from ratios of 1:1000 in moderate-temperature neutral-pH springs to 100:1 in hyperthermophilic acidic springs [135] (Table 2).

4.3. Eukaryotic Microorganisms: Thermal Limits and Ecological Roles

While prokaryotes dominate hot spring communities at temperatures above 60 °C, diverse eukaryotic microorganisms colonize moderate-temperature zones and perform critical ecosystem functions, including grazing, decomposition, and primary production. Eukaryotic diversity remains poorly characterized, with fewer than 500 thermophilic or thermotolerant eukaryotic species formally described compared to over 2000 prokaryotic thermophiles [157,158]. This disparity reflects both methodological bias toward prokaryote-optimized techniques and the fundamental thermal constraints that limit eukaryotic growth above 62 °C.
Eukaryotic thermal limits differ fundamentally from those of prokaryotes. The maximum growth temperature for eukaryotes is approximately 62 °C, established by the red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolae [159], compared to 122 °C for archaea. This 60 °C differential reflects intrinsic constraints imposed by eukaryotic cellular complexity, including thermal instability of nuclear envelopes, spliceosomal machinery, tubulin-based cytoskeleton, and mitochondrial cristae membranes [160].
Despite limited research attention, hot spring eukaryotic diversity encompasses multiple kingdoms. Free-living amoebae such as Echinamoeba thermarum and Stenamoeba dejonckheerii function as bacterivores [161]. Amoeboflagellates like Tetramitus thermacidophilus exhibit remarkable tolerance to combined thermal and pH extremes. Thermophilic fungi contribute to organic matter decomposition and produce bioactive secondary metabolites, with Teratosphaeria acidotherma representing one of the most acidophilic eukaryotes known [162].
Thermophilic red algae of the class Cyanidiophyceae represent the upper thermal limits of photosynthetic eukaryotes, thriving in acidic hot springs where they perform oxygenic photosynthesis. Their adaptations include modified photosystem proteins resistant to thermal denaturation, enhanced photoprotective mechanisms, and acidic polysaccharide cell walls [162,163].
While often overlooked, eukaryotic diversity represents an untapped frontier for bioprospecting. Thermophilic fungi produce bioactive metabolites, thermotolerant algae offer genes for engineering crop heat tolerance, and protists may harbor novel biosynthetic pathways. Closing the research gap on eukaryotes is not merely an academic exercise but an economic imperative for maximizing hot springs’ contribution to the bioeconomy.

5. Biotechnological Applications

5.1. Thermostable Enzymes: Industrial Revolution

Thermostable enzymes from hot spring microorganisms have revolutionized molecular biology and catalyzed billion-dollar industries. The paradigmatic success is Taq DNA polymerase from Thermus aquaticus, isolated from Yellowstone hot springs in 1969, which enabled the polymerase chain reaction and generates over USD 2 billion in annual revenues from diagnostics, forensics, and research applications [164].
Beyond Taq polymerase, hot springs have yielded thermostable DNA ligases, restriction endonucleases, and high-fidelity DNA polymerases from Pyrococcus and Thermococcus species [165]. In industrial biocatalysis, thermostable proteases, lipases, and amylases function in detergent formulations, with the global market exceeding USD 2 billion annually [166]. Textile processing employs thermostable amylases and cellulases, while food and beverage industries utilize α-amylases, glucoamylases, xylanases, and pectinases [167,168].
An emerging frontier for thermostable enzymes is renewable energy production. Second-generation biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass require enzymatic saccharification. Thermophilic cellulases, xylanases, and accessory enzymes from genera including Caldicellulosiruptor, Thermotoga, and Clostridium thermocellum offer advantages including higher specific activity at 60–80 °C, reduced contamination risk, lower viscosity enabling improved mass transfer, and potential for consolidated bioprocessing [169,170]. Despite advantages, commercialization faces challenges including enzyme cost, substrate recalcitrance, and product inhibition [171]. While microbe-derived products represent high-value niche markets, hot springs also provide direct access to inorganic resources with strategic and industrial importance.

5.2. Bioactive Metabolites and Pharmaceuticals

The global antimicrobial resistance crisis has created urgent demand for novel antimicrobial compounds. Hot springs represent underexplored reservoirs of bioactive secondary metabolites, as extreme environmental pressures promote evolution of unique biosynthetic pathways and chemical scaffolds [172,173].
Thermophilic bacteria produce diverse antimicrobial compounds, including heat-stable bacteriocins active against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens [174]. Halothermophilic archaea synthesize halocins and archaeocins with activities against MRSA and VRE [173,175]. Hot spring fungi contribute additional chemical diversity through polyketides and peptide metabolites with antimicrobial, anticancer, and immunomodulatory activities [176].
Beyond antimicrobials, hot spring metabolites show promise for treating complex diseases. Cytotoxic peptides and polyketides demonstrate anticancer potential [177], while anti-inflammatory compounds inhibit pro-inflammatory cascades relevant to chronic disease [111]. Immunomodulators and antioxidants with radical-scavenging properties offer additional therapeutic applications [178].
Despite this promising diversity, most discoveries remain at early technology readiness levels. Translation to clinical applications requires structure elucidation, mechanism-of-action studies, optimization of bioactivity, toxicology studies, and scale-up of production systems [111]. To date, no hot spring-derived metabolites have reached clinical trials, highlighting the nascent state of this field and substantial opportunities for drug discovery. Despite the technological sophistication of enzyme production and mineral extraction, the economically dominant use of hot springs remains direct human utilization through wellness tourism and balneotherapy, which generates revenues exceeding all other applications combined.

5.3. Environmental Applications: Bioremediation

Beyond synthetic polymers, hot spring microorganisms demonstrate bioremediation potential for diverse pollutants. Thermophilic microorganisms produce enzymes capable of hydrolyzing synthetic polymers, including polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, polypropylene, and nylon [179,180]. Thermostable esterases and cutinases cleave ester bonds in PET, depolymerizing the plastic to recyclable monomers [181,182]. Reaction rates increase exponentially with temperature from 40 °C to 70 °C, with some enzymes remaining active at 80–90 °C.
Hot spring microorganisms exhibit robust tolerance and detoxification mechanisms for heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium [47,183]. Thermophilic bacteria and archaea reduce toxic soluble metal species to less toxic forms through respiratory reduction, oxidize reduced metals to precipitate insoluble oxides, and biosorb metals onto cell surfaces [184]. Thermophilic hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria metabolize alkanes, aromatics, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [185]. Thermophilic bioreactors treat high-temperature industrial wastewaters from textile dyeing, paper manufacturing, and food processing without cooling requirements, improving energy efficiency [186].

6. Economic Applications and the Hot Spring Bioeconomy

6.1. Therapeutic Applications of Mineral-Rich Waters

Hot spring waters are enriched with dissolved minerals derived from water-rock interactions under elevated temperature and pressure. These dissolved minerals underpin balneotherapy, with observational clinical studies documenting health benefits including alleviation of inflammatory conditions, improvement in cardiovascular function, respiratory benefits, and dermatological improvements [187,188] (Table 3).
Primary minerals include calcium for bone health and cardiovascular regulation, magnesium for muscle relaxation and pain relief, sulfur for dermatological conditions and arthritis relief, silica for skin health and collagen synthesis, iron for blood circulation improvement, and bicarbonate for digestive health [199,200]. While therapeutic benefits are supported by clinical evidence, molecular and microbiological mechanisms remain incompletely understood [201,202].
Key research questions include whether immersion alters skin microbiome composition, what proportion of dissolved minerals penetrate intact skin, which molecular pathways mediate anti-inflammatory effects, and whether benefits result from thermal effects, chemical effects, or their synergistic combination [203]. Future research must move beyond observational data to controlled molecular studies elucidating host-mineral-microbe interactions, transforming balneotherapy from a traditional practice to evidence-based precision medicine.

6.2. Strategic Minerals and Rare Earth Elements

Beyond dissolved minerals with therapeutic applications, hot spring fluids contain strategically important elements with industrial and technological value. While therapeutic minerals serve the wellness economy, these strategic resources connect hot springs to emerging green technologies and national resource security.
Certain geothermal fluids contain appreciable concentrations of rare earth elements strategically critical for modern technologies, including permanent magnets, LED phosphors, catalysts, high-performance alloys, and emerging green technologies [204,205]. Geothermal extraction represents a potentially lower-impact alternative to conventional mining [206]. Proposed recovery technologies include selective precipitation, adsorption and ion exchange, membrane filtration, and biological recovery [207].
Current technology readiness is at proof-of-concept and laboratory validation levels. Barriers to commercialization include low concentrations requiring processing of enormous fluid volumes, competition from established mining operations, matrix complexity fouling recovery systems, regulatory frameworks requiring fluid reinjection, and price volatility [208,209]. Despite challenges, integrated geothermal-rare earth element systems represent long-term strategic opportunities as demand grows and environmental regulations tighten.

6.3. Sustainable Management Framework

The modern hot spring bioeconomy encompasses high-value tourism and wellness generating approximately USD 57 billion globally; bioprospecting for enzymes, metabolites, and genetic resources; and mineral and energy extraction [210,211]. Uncoordinated development threatens delicate microbial ecosystems, necessitating integrated management frameworks (Figure 6).
Sustainable development requires treating geothermal systems as non-renewable geobiological reserves [212]. Key management principles include: (i) spatial zoning with different use priorities; (ii) carrying capacity assessments based on ecological monitoring; (iii) benefit sharing where revenue supports conservation; (iv) ecosystem services valuation quantifying economic value of intact systems; and (v) international cooperation facilitating knowledge exchange [213,214]. When managed through integrated frameworks balancing economic utilization with ecosystem protection, hot springs can function as sustainable bioeconomy pillars providing long-term economic resilience.

7. Critical Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities

Advancing hot spring science requires addressing gaps spanning three interconnected domains: fundamental biological processes, technological innovation, and environmental stewardship. Progress in each domain will amplify advances in the others, creating synergistic benefits for both basic science and applied applications.

7.1. Fundamental Biological Processes

Viral ecology and horizontal gene transfer: Viruses represent the most abundant biological entities in most ecosystems, yet viral diversity in hot springs remains severely understudied [215,216]. Preliminary viral metagenomics suggests these systems harbor novel viral lineages, with less than 10% of viral sequences matching known viruses [217]. Key research questions include which viral types dominate different environments, what are their host specificities, whether viruses regulate microbial densities through kill-the-winner dynamics, and how viruses mediate horizontal gene transfer.
Horizontal gene transfer via transformation, conjugation, and transduction enables rapid adaptation [218]. Thermophilic microorganisms exhibit evidence of extensive gene transfer, though rates, mechanisms, and ecological consequences remain poorly quantified [219]. Research priorities include quantifying transfer rates, cataloging mobile genetic element diversity, identifying barriers and hotspots, and assessing biocontainment risks for engineered thermophiles.
Eukaryotic microbiology: Strategic research priorities include targeted isolation using low-nutrient media and extended incubation times, deep amplicon sequencing cataloging global diversity, experimental manipulations quantifying top-down control, comparative genomics identifying genetic changes enabling heat tolerance, and systematic screening for biotechnological potential [220].

7.2. Technological and Methodological Innovation

Single-cell and spatial omics: Bulk sampling approaches obscure fine-scale spatial heterogeneity within biofilms exhibiting chemical gradients over micron to millimeter scales [221]. Emerging technologies include fluorescence in situ hybridization combined with Raman microspectroscopy, revealing metabolic activity at single-cell resolution; nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry (NanoSIMS), a technique that maps isotope distribution at subcellular resolution to track metabolic activity; single-cell genomics and transcriptomics reconstructing genomes from uncultivated organisms; and microfluidic cultivation creating picoliter-scale growth chambers mimicking natural microenvironments [222].

7.3. Environmental Change and Conservation

Climate change impacts: Global climate change may alter hot spring ecosystems through hydrological impacts affecting discharge rates, temperature shifts compressing habitable zones, altered biogeochemistry from changed precipitation chemistry, and permafrost thaw modifying groundwater flow paths [223,224]. Research needs include long-term monitoring, establishing permanent stations tracking temporal changes, manipulative experiments simulating climate scenarios, predictive modeling forecasting ecosystem responses, and paleoclimate records analyzing how geothermal ecosystems responded to previous climate fluctuations.
Conservation policy: Science-based conservation policies are increasingly urgent [225]. Priorities include protected area designation, establishing legal protections, access and benefit-sharing agreements implementing Nagoya Protocol provisions, environmental impact assessments before development, restoration ecology protocols for degraded springs, international cooperation for globally significant systems, and citizen science engaging public stakeholders in monitoring and conservation [226,227].

8. Conclusions

Hot springs constitute geobiological systems where geothermal energy, mineral-rich fluids, and biology interact to generate ecosystems of complexity. This review shows that hot springs are dynamic, structured environments illuminating core principles of microbial evolution, community assembly, and metabolic innovation. Advances in metagenomics, single-cell genomics, and spatially resolved methods reveal extensive taxonomic novelty and breadth among thermophiles and hyperthermophiles, reinforcing hot springs as model systems for probing early Earth conditions and the limits of life. Beyond fundamental insight, hot spring microorganisms deliver tangible societal value. Thermostable enzymes, distinctive secondary metabolites, and high-temperature bioremediation capacities underpin biotechnology, while mineral-rich waters and strategic elements connect geothermal systems to a growing bioeconomy. Yet accelerating tourism, resource extraction, and climate-driven hydrological change threaten ecosystem integrity. Future research should move from inventories to integrative frameworks coupling molecular ecology, geochemistry, and ecosystem modeling. Priority directions include viral–host dynamics, horizontal gene transfer, and eukaryotic roles, ensuring sustainable stewardship.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.N.W. and P.D.; methodology, N.V. and I.N.W.; software, N.V., K.A., A.G. and A.B.S.; validation, I.N.W., N.P.A. and D.D.; formal analysis, N.V. and K.A.; investigation, I.N.W., N.P.A., A.B.S. and P.D.; resources, P.D., A.G., K.R. and D.D.; data curation, N.V., S.A. and K.A.; writing—original draft preparation, N.V., K.A. and S.A.; writing—review and editing, P.D., D.D. and A.B.S.; visualization, N.P.A., I.N.W., K.R. and A.G.; supervision, P.D. and I.N.W.; project administration, P.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Udayana University International Senior Fellowship (UNISERF) grant for the year 2023 (Grant Number: B/530-4/UN14.4 A/PT.01.03/2023), Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Ni Made Yustikarini from the Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at Udayana University for her support throughout the entire project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pentecost, A.; Jones, B.; Renaut, R.W. What is a hot spring? Can. J. Earth Sci. 2003, 40, 1443–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ward, D.M.; Castenholz, R.W.; Miller, S.R. Cyanobacteria in Geothermal Habitats. In Ecology of Cyanobacteria II: Their Diversity in Space and Time; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 39–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Colman, D.R.; Feyhl-Buska, J.; Fecteau, K.M.; Xu, H.; Shock, E.L.; Boyd, E.S. Ecological differentiation in planktonic and sediment-associated chemotrophic microbial populations in Yellowstone hot springs. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiw137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Trumpy, E.; Donato, A.; Gianelli, G.; Gola, G.; Minissale, A.; Montanari, D.; Santilano, A.; Manzella, A. Data integration and favourability maps for exploring geothermal systems in Sicily, southern Italy. Geothermics 2015, 56, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Massello, F.L.; Chan, C.S.; Chan, K.G.; Goh, K.M.; Donati, E.; Urbieta, M.S. Meta-Analysis of Microbial Communities in Hot Springs: Recurrent Taxa and Complex Shaping Factors beyond pH and Temperature. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Qi, Y.L.; Chen, Y.T.; Xie, Y.G.; Li, Y.X.; Rao, Y.Z.; Li, M.M.; Xie, Q.J.; Cao, X.R.; Chen, L.; Qu, Y.N.; et al. Analysis of nearly 3000 archaeal genomes from terrestrial geothermal springs sheds light on interconnected biogeochemical processes. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 4066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Reysenbach, A.L.; Shock, E. Merging genomes with geochemistry in hydrothermal ecosystems. Science 2002, 296, 1077–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Stetter, K.O. Hyperthermophiles in the history of life. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 361, 1837–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Mangrola, A.V.; Patel, R.K.; Dudhagara, P.; Gandhi, H.; Ghelani, A.; Jain, K.R.; Shah, H.; Mevada, V.A. Thermophiles: Physiology, metabolism, enzymology, and adaptation mechanisms. In Physiology, Genomics, and Biotechnological Applications of Extremophiles; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 65–93. [Google Scholar]
  10. Boekstein, M.S.; Spencer, J.P. International trends in health tourism: Implications for thermal spring tourism in the Western Cape Province of South Africa: Tourism and hospitality. Afr. J. Phys. Health Educ. Recreat. Danc. 2013, 19, 287–298. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jones, P. Wellness in the Global Hospitality and Tourism Industry. Athens J. Tour. 2024, 11, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Henley, R.W.; Ellis, A.J. Geothermal systems ancient and modern: A geochemical review. Earth Sci. Rev. 1983, 19, 1–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hurwitz, S.; Lowenstern, J.B. Dynamics of the Yellowstone hydrothermal system. Rev. Geophys. 2014, 52, 375–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Giggenbach, W.F. Isotopic shifts in waters from geothermal and volcanic systems along convergent plate boundaries and their origin. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1992, 113, 495–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Inskeep, W.P.; McDermott, T.R. Geomicrobiology of acid-sulfate-chloride springs in Yellowstone National Park. Geotherm. Biol. Geochem. Yellowstone Natl. Park 2005, 1, 143–162. [Google Scholar]
  16. Shock, E.L.; Holland, M.; Meyer-Dombard, D.; Amend, J.P.; Osburn, G.R.; Fischer, T.P. Quantifying inorganic sources of geochemical energy in hydrothermal ecosystems, Yellowstone National Park, USA. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74, 4005–4043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cox, A.; Shock, E.L.; Havig, J.R. The transition to microbial photosynthesis in hot spring ecosystems. Chem. Geol. 2011, 280, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Spear, J.R.; Walker, J.J.; McCollom, T.M.; Pace, N.R. Hydrogen and bioenergetics in the Yellowstone geothermal ecosystem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 2555–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mangrola, A.V.; Dudhagara, P.R.; Koringa, P.G.; Joshi, C.G.; Patel, R.K. Metagenomic microbial community profiling of Unnai hot spring by Ion-Torrent based shotgun sequencing. Microbiology 2018, 87, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nicholson, K. Geothermal Fluids: Chemistry and Exploration Techniques; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kirk Nordstrom, D.; Blaine McCleskey, R.; Ball, J.W. Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: IV Acid–sulfate waters. Appl. Geochem. 2009, 24, 191–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, W.P.; Wei, H.; Zhang, S.Y.; Zhang, S.F.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, W.J.; Lee, J.S.; Wang, M.; Wang, D.Z. Elevated temperature as the dominant stressor on the harmful algal bloom-causing dinoflagellate Prorocentrum obtusidens in a future ocean scenario. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 952, 175946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. López-López, O.; Cerdán, M.E.; González-Siso, M.I. Hot Spring Metagenomics. Life 2013, 3, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Power, J.F.; Carere, C.R.; Lee, C.K.; Wakerley, G.L.J.; Evans, D.W.; Button, M.; White, D.; Climo, M.D.; Hinze, A.M.; Morgan, X.C.; et al. Microbial biogeography of 925 geothermal springs in New Zealand. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Arnórsson, S.; Stefánsson, A.; Bjarnason, J.Ö. Fluid-Fluid Interactions in Geothermal Systems. Rev. Miner. Geochem. 2007, 65, 259–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Symonds, R.B.; Gerlach, T.M.; Reed, M.H. Magmatic gas scrubbing: Implications for volcano monitoring. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2001, 108, 303–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hilton, D.R. The helium and carbon isotope systematics of a continental geothermal system: Results from monitoring studies at Long Valley caldera (California, U.S.A.). Chem. Geol. 1996, 127, 269–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Boyd, E.S.; Jackson, R.A.; Encarnacion, G.; Zahn, J.A.; Beard, T.; Leavitt, W.D.; Pi, Y.; Zhang, C.L.; Pearson, A.; Geesey, G.G. Isolation, Characterization, and Ecology of Sulfur-Respiring Crenarchaea Inhabiting Acid-Sulfate-Chloride-Containing Geothermal Springs in Yellowstone National Park. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 6669–6677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Allwood, A.C.; Walter, M.R.; Burch, I.W.; Kamber, B.S. 3.43-billion-year-old stromatolite reef from the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia: Ecosystem-scale insights to early life on Earth. Precambrian Res. 2007, 158, 198–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Damer, B.; Deamer, D. The hot spring hypothesis for an origin of life. Astrobiology 2020, 20, 429–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Des Marais, D.J.; Walter, M.R. Terrestrial hot spring systems: Introduction. Astrobiology 2019, 19, 1419–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Baross, J.A. The rocky road to biomolecules. Nature 2018, 564, 42–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Walter, M.R.; Des Marais, D.J. Preservation of biological information in thermal spring deposits: Developing a strategy for the search for fossil life on Mars. Icarus 1993, 101, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yin, Z.; Ye, L.; Jing, C. Genome-resolved metagenomics and metatranscriptomics reveal that Aquificae dominates arsenate reduction in Tengchong geothermal springs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 16473–16482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Boomer, S.M.; Noll, K.L.; Geesey, G.G.; Dutton, B.E. Formation of multilayered photosynthetic biofilms in an alkaline thermal spring in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 2464–2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Urbieta, M.S.; Donati, E.R.; Chan, K.G.; Shahar, S.; Sin, L.L.; Goh, K.M. Thermophiles in the genomic era: Biodiversity, science, and applications. Biotechnol. Adv. 2015, 33, 633–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Selvarajan, R.; Sibanda, T.; Tekere, M. Thermophilic bacterial communities inhabiting the microbial mats of “indifferent” and chalybeate (iron-rich) thermal springs: Diversity and biotechnological analysis. Microbiologyopen 2018, 7, e00560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ward, D.M.; Ferris, M.J.; Nold, S.C.; Bateson, M.M. A Natural View of Microbial Biodiversity within Hot Spring Cyanobacterial Mat Communities. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1998, 62, 1353–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schuler, C.G.; Havig, J.R.; Hamilton, T.L. Hot Spring microbial community composition, morphology, and carbon fixation: Implications for interpreting the ancient rock record. Front. Earth Sci. 2017, 5, 302276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bunbury, F.; Rivas, C.; Calatrava, V.; Shelton, A.N.; Grossman, A.; Bhaya, D. Differential Phototactic Behavior of Closely Related Cyanobacterial Isolates from Yellowstone Hot Spring Biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2022, 88, e00196-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bunbury, F.; Rivas, C.; Calatrava, V.; Malkovskiy, A.V.; Joubert, L.M.; Parvate, A.D.; Evans, J.E.; Grossman, A.R.; Bhaya, D. Cyanobacteria and Chloroflexota cooperate to structure light-responsive biofilms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2025, 122, e2423574122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, J.S.; Hussain, B.; Tsai, H.C.; Nagarajan, V.; Koner, S.; Hsu, B.M. Analysis and interpretation of hot springs water, biofilms, and sediment bacterial community profiling and their metabolic potential in the area of Taiwan geothermal ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 856, 159115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Urbieta, M.S.; González-Toril, E.; Bazán, Á.A.; Giaveno, M.A.; Donati, E. Comparison of the microbial communities of hot springs waters and the microbial biofilms in the acidic geothermal area of Copahue (Neuquén, Argentina). Extremophiles 2015, 19, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Fernandes-Martins, M.C.; Keller, L.M.; Munro-Ehrlich, M.; Zimlich, K.R.; Mettler, M.K.; England, A.M.; Clare, R.; Surya, K.; Shock, E.L.; Colman, D.R.; et al. Ecological dichotomies arise in microbial communities due to mixing of deep hydrothermal waters and atmospheric gas in a circumneutral hot spring. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87, e01598-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hujslová, M.; Gryndlerová, H.; Bystrianský, L.; Hršelová, H.; Gryndler, M. Biofilm and planktonic microbial communities in highly acidic soil (pH < 3) in the Soos National Nature Reserve, Czech Republic. Extremophiles 2020, 24, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Anda, D.; Szabó, A.; Kovács-Bodor, P.; Makk, J.; Felföldi, T.; Ács, É.; Mádl-Szőnyi, J.; Borsodi, A.K. In situ modelling of biofilm formation in a hydrothermal spring cave. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Robinson, G.; Caldwell, G.S.; Wade, M.J.; Free, A.; Jones, C.L.; Stead, S.M. Profiling bacterial communities associated with sediment-based aquaculture bioremediation systems under contrasting redox regimes. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Finke, N.; Jørgensen, B.B. Response of fermentation and sulfate reduction to experimental temperature changes in temperate and Arctic marine sediments. ISME J. 2008, 2, 815–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hong, Y.; Wu, J.; Wilson, S.; Song, B. Vertical stratification of sediment microbial communities along geochemical gradients of a subterranean estuary located at the Gloucester Beach of Virginia, United States. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 3343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aguilera, A.; Souza-Egipsy, V.; González-Toril, E.; Rendueles, O.; Amils, R. Eukaryotic microbial diversity of phototrophic microbial mats in two Icelandic geothermal hot springs. Int. Microbiol. 2010, 13, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhou, X.; Lennon, J.T.; Lu, X.; Ruan, A. Anthropogenic activities mediate stratification and stability of microbial communities in freshwater sediments. Microbiome 2023, 11, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. An, S.U.; Kim, K.T.; Kim, S.H.; Baek, J.W.; Jeong, H.J.; Sun, C.I.; Choi, J.Y.; Hong, S.; Lee, D.I.; Lee, J.S. Biogeochemical cycling of sedimentary organic carbon and benthic nutrient fluxes in the semi-enclosed Jinhae Bay, Korea: Insights into benthic-pelagic coupling. Front. Mar. Sci. 2025, 11, 1521036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yin, Z.; Zhang, M.; Jing, C.; Cai, Y. Organic matter in geothermal springs and its association with the microbial community. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 954, 176775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dar, S.A.; Kleerebezem, R.; Stams, A.J.; Kuenen, J.G.; Muyzer, G. Competition and coexistence of sulfate-reducing bacteria, acetogens and methanogens in a lab-scale anaerobic bioreactor as affected by changing substrate to sulfate ratio. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 78, 1045–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kato, S.; Masuda, S.; Shibata, A.; Shirasu, K.; Ohkuma, M. Insights into ecological roles of uncultivated bacteria in Katase hot spring sediment from long-read metagenomics. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1045931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Podar, M.; Gilmour, C.C.; Brandt, C.C.; Soren, A.; Brown, S.D.; Crable, B.R.; Palumbo, A.V.; Somenahally, A.C.; Elias, D.A. Global prevalence and distribution of genes and microorganisms involved in mercury methylation. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1500675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tang, J.; Zheng, A.P.; Bromfield, E.S.P.; Zhu, J.; Li, S.C.; Wang, S.Q.; Deng, Q.M.; Li, P. 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis of halophilic and halotolerant bacteria isolated from a hypersaline pond in Sichuan, China. Ann. Microbiol. 2010, 61, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Häder, D.P.; Gao, K. Aquatic Productivity under Multiple Stressors. Water 2023, 15, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dopson, M.; Johnson, D.B. Biodiversity, metabolism and applications of acidophilic sulfur-metabolizing microorganisms. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 14, 2620–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Santos, H.; Da Costa, M.S. Compatible solutes of organisms that live in hot saline environments. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 4, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Takai, K.; Nakamura, K.; Toki, T.; Tsunogai, U.; Miyazaki, M.; Miyazaki, J.; Hirayama, H.; Nakagawa, S.; Nunoura, T.; Horikoshi, K. Cell proliferation at 122 °C and isotopically heavy CH4 production by a hyperthermophilic methanogen under high-pressure cultivation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 10949–10954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Lulchev, P.; Klostermeier, D. Reverse gyrase—Recent advances and current mechanistic understanding of positive DNA supercoiling. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, 8200–8213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Christodoulou, E.; Vorgias, C.E. The thermostability of DNA-binding protein HU from mesophilic, thermophilic, and extreme thermophilic bacteria. Extremophiles 2002, 6, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mukherjee, A.; Sokunbi, A.O.; Grove, A. DNA protection by histone-like protein HU from the hyperthermophilic eubacterium Thermotoga maritima. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36, 3956–3968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hu, E.Z.; Lan, X.R.; Liu, Z.L.; Gao, J.; Niu, D.K. A positive correlation between GC content and growth temperature in prokaryotes. BMC Genom. 2022, 23, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, Q.; Cen, Z.; Zhao, J. The survival mechanisms of thermophiles at high temperatures: An angle of omics. Physiology 2015, 30, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fiala, G.; Stetter, K.O. Pyrococcus furiosus sp. nov. represents a novel genus of marine heterotrophic archaebacteria growing optimally at 100 C. Arch. Microbiol. 1986, 145, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Robb, F.T.; Maeder, D.L.; Brown, J.R.; DiRuggiero, J.; Stump, M.D.; Yeh, R.K.; Weiss, R.B.; Dunn, D.M. Genomic sequence of hyperthermophile, Pyrococcus furiosus: Implications for physiology and enzymology. Methods Enzymol. 2001, 330, 134–157. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  69. Zeldovich, K.B.; Berezovsky, I.N.; Shakhnovich, E.I. Protein and DNA sequence determinants of thermophilic adaptation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2007, 3, e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Papageorgiou, A.C.; Adam, P.S.; Stavros, P.; Nounesis, G.; Meijers, R.; Petratos, K.; Vorgias, C.E. HU histone-like DNA-binding protein from Thermus thermophilus: Structural and evolutionary analyses. Extremophiles 2016, 20, 695–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Takami, H.; Takaki, Y.; Chee, G.J.; Nishi, S.; Shimamura, S.; Suzuki, H.; Matsui, S.; Uchiyama, I. Thermoadaptation trait revealed by the genome sequence of thermophilic Geobacillus kaustophilus. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32, 6292–6303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Pucci, F.; Rooman, M. Physical and molecular bases of protein thermal stability and cold adaptation. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2017, 42, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Littlechild, J.A. Archaeal enzymes and applications in industrial biocatalysts. Archaea 2015, 2015, 147671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Åqvist, J.; Isaksen, G.V.; Brandsdal, B.O. Computation of enzyme cold adaptation. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2017, 1, 0051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Boccaletto, P.; Stefaniak, F.; Ray, A.; Cappannini, A.; Mukherjee, S.; Purta, E.; Kurkowska, M.; Shirvanizadeh, N.; Destefanis, E.; Groza, P.; et al. MODOMICS: A database of RNA modification pathways. 2021 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50, D231–D235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Lorenz, C.; Lünse, C.E.; Mörl, M. tRNA modifications: Impact on structure and thermal adaptation. Biomolecules 2017, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Danan, C.; Manickavel, S.; Hafner, M. PAR-CLIP: A method for transcriptome-wide identification of RNA binding protein interaction sites. In Post-Transcriptional Gene Regulation; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 153–173. [Google Scholar]
  78. Caforio, A.; Driessen, A.J. Archaeal phospholipids: Structural properties and biosynthesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA) Mol. Cell Biol. Lipids 2017, 1862, 1325–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Salvador-Castell, M.; Tourte, M.; Oger, P.M. In search for the membrane regulators of archaea. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sollich, M.; Yoshinaga, M.Y.; Häusler, S.; Price, R.E.; Hinrichs, K.U.; Bühring, S.I. Heat stress dictates microbial lipid composition along a thermal gradient in marine sediments. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jensen, S.M.; Neesgaard, V.L.; Skjoldbjerg, S.L.N.; Brandl, M.; Ejsing, C.S.; Treusch, A.H. The effects of temperature and growth phase on the lipidomes of Sulfolobus islandicus and Sulfolobus tokodaii. Life 2015, 5, 1539–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rosenzweig, R.; Nillegoda, N.B.; Mayer, M.P.; Bukau, B. The Hsp70 chaperone network. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019, 20, 665–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Schopf, F.H.; Biebl, M.M.; Buchner, J. The HSP90 chaperone machinery. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2017, 18, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Verghese, J.; Abrams, J.; Wang, Y.; Morano, K.A. Biology of the heat shock response and protein chaperones: Budding yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as a model system. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2012, 76, 115–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Blackwood, J.K.; Rzechorzek, N.J.; Abrams, A.S.; Maman, J.D.; Pellegrini, L.; Robinson, N.P. Structural and functional insights into DNA-end processing by the archaeal HerA helicase–NurA nuclease complex. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, 3183–3196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ishino, S.; Nishi, Y.; Oda, S.; Uemori, T.; Sagara, T.; Takatsu, N.; Yamagami, T.; Shirai, T.; Ishino, Y. Identification of a mismatch-specific endonuclease in hyperthermophilic Archaea. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016, 44, 2977–2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mariotti, L.; Wild, S.; Brunoldi, G.; Piceni, A.; Ceppi, I.; Kummer, S.; Lutz, R.E.; Cejka, P.; Gari, K. The iron–sulphur cluster in human DNA2 is required for all biochemical activities of DNA2. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sarmiento, F.; Mrázek, J.; Whitman, W.B. Genome-scale analysis of gene function in the hydrogenotrophic methanogenic archaeon Methanococcus maripaludis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 4726–4731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. White, M.F.; Allers, T. DNA repair in the archaea—An emerging picture. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 42, 514–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Empadinhas, N.; da Costa, M.S. Osmoadaptation mechanisms in prokaryotes: Distribution of compatible solutes. Int. Microbiol. 2008, 11, 151–161. [Google Scholar]
  91. Shao, W.; Price, M.N.; Deutschbauer, A.M.; Romine, M.F.; Arkin, A.P. Conservation of transcription start sites within genes across a bacterial genus. MBio 2014, 5, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gonçalves, L.G.; Lamosa, P.; Huber, R.; Santos, H. Di-myo-inositol phosphate and novel UDP-sugars accumulate in the extreme hyperthermophile Pyrolobus fumarii. Extremophiles 2008, 12, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Faria, T.Q.; Mingote, A.; Siopa, F.; Ventura, R.; Maycock, C.; Santos, H. Design of new enzyme stabilizers inspired by glycosides of hyperthermophilic microorganisms. Carbohydr. Res. 2008, 343, 3025–3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Hoffmann, T.; Bremer, E. Protection of Bacillus subtilis against cold stress via compatible-solute acquisition. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 1552–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Madigan, M.T.; Martinko, J.M.; Dunlap, P.V.; Clark, D.P. Brock biology of microorganisms 12th edn. Int. Microbiol. 2008, 11, 65–66. [Google Scholar]
  96. Merino, N.; Aronson, H.S.; Bojanova, D.P.; Feyhl-Buska, J.; Wong, M.L.; Zhang, S.; Giovannelli, D. Living at the extremes: Extremophiles and the limits of life in a planetary context. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Sarmiento, F.; Peralta, R.; Blamey, J.M. Cold and hot extremozymes: Industrial relevance and current trends. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2015, 3, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Schönheit, P.; Buckel, W.; Martin, W.F. On the origin of heterotrophy. Trends Microbiol. 2016, 24, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Grogan, D.W. Understanding DNA repair in hyperthermophilic Archaea: Persistent gaps and other reasons to focus on the fork. Archaea 2015, 2015, 942605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zeldes, B.M.; Keller, M.W.; Loder, A.J.; Straub, C.T.; Adams, M.W.; Kelly, R.M. Extremely thermophilic microorganisms as metabolic engineering platforms for production of fuels and industrial chemicals. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Groussin, M.; Gouy, M. Adaptation to environmental temperature is a major determinant of molecular evolutionary rates in archaea. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2011, 28, 2661–2674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Forterre, P. A hot story from comparative genomics: Reverse gyrase is the only hyperthermophile-specific protein. Trends Genet. 2002, 18, 236–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Singer, G.A.C.; Hickey, D.A. Thermophilic prokaryotes have characteristic patterns of codon usage, amino acid composition and nucleotide content. Gene 2003, 317, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Koga, Y. Thermal Adaptation of the Archaeal and Bacterial Lipid Membranes. Archaea 2012, 2012, 789652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Trent, J.D.; Gabrielsen, M.; Jensen, B.; Neuhard, J.; Olsen, J. Acquired thermotolerance and heat shock proteins in thermophiles from the three phylogenetic domains. J. Bacteriol. 1994, 176, 6148–6152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hedlund, B.P.; Dodsworth, J.A.; Murugapiran, S.K.; Rinke, C.; Woyke, T. Impact of single-cell genomics and metagenomics on the emerging view of extremophile “microbial dark matter”. Extremophiles 2014, 18, 865–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Parte, A.C.; Carbasse, J.S.; Meier-Kolthoff, J.P.; Reimer, L.C.; Göker, M. List of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature (LPSN) moves to the DSMZ. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 5607–5612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ghelani, A.; Patel, R.; Mangrola, A.; Dudhagara, P. Cultivation-independent comprehensive survey of bacterial diversity in Tulsi Shyam Hot Springs, India. Genom. Data 2015, 4, 54–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ward, L.M.; Cardona, T.; Holland-Moritz, H. Evolutionary Implications of Anoxygenic Phototrophy in the Bacterial Phylum Candidatus Eremiobacterota (WPS-2). Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Gohel, S.D.; Singh, S.P. Purification strategies, characteristics and thermodynamic analysis of a highly thermostable alkaline protease from a salt-tolerant alkaliphilic actinomycete, Nocardiopsis alba OK-5. J. Chromatogr. B 2012, 889–890, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ajeje, S.B.; Hu, Y.; Song, G.; Peter, S.B.; Afful, R.G.; Sun, F.; Asadollahi, M.A.; Amiri, H.; Abdulkhani, A.; Sun, H. Thermostable Cellulases/Xylanases from Thermophilic and Hyperthermophilic Microorganisms: Current Perspective. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 794304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Podosokorskaya, O.A.; Prokofeva, M.I.; Kuchierskaya, A.A.; Klyukina, A.A.; Elcheninov, A.G. Tenuifilum osseticum sp. nov., a novel thermophilic hydrolytic bacterium within the Tenuifilaceae isolated from a North Ossetian thermal spring, and emended description of the genus Tenuifilum. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2025, 48, 126591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Liu, Z.T.; Dai, J.Y.; Lian, Z.H.; Liu, L.; Xian, W.D.; Li, M.M.; Fang, B.Z.; Jiao, J.Y.; Li, W.J. Thermomonas flagellata sp. nov. and Thermomonas alba sp. nov., two novel members of the phylum Pseudomonadota isolated from hot spring sediments. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2022, 72, 005444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Habib, N.; Khan, I.U.; Xiao, M.; Li, S.; Saqib, M.; Xian, W.D.; Butt, S.; Li, W.J. Marmoricola caldifontis sp. Nov., a novel actinobacterium isolated from a hot spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 2053–2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Zayulina, K.S.; Prokofeva, M.I.; Elcheninov, A.G.; Voytova, M.P.; Novikov, A.A.; Kochetkova, T.V.; Kublanov, I.V. Arenimonas fontis sp. Nov., a bacterium isolated from chukotka hot spring, Arctic Region, Russia. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 2726–2731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hanada, S.; Tamaki, H.; Nakamura, K.; Kamagata, Y. Crenotalea thermophila gen. nov., sp. nov., a member of the family Chitinophagaceae isolated from a hot spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2014, 64, 1359–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Mori, K.; Yamazoe, A.; Hosoyama, A.; Ohji, S.; Fujita, N.; Ishibashi, J.I.; Kimura, H.; Suzuki, K.I. Thermotoga profunda sp. nov. and Thermotoga caldifontis sp. nov., anaerobic thermophilic bacteria isolated from terrestrial hot springs. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 2128–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Podosokorskaya, O.A.; Elcheninov, A.G.; Novikov, A.A.; Merkel, A.Y.; Kublanov, I.V. Fontisphaera persica gen. nov., sp. nov., a thermophilic hydrolytic bacterium from a hot spring of Baikal Lake region, and proposal of Fontisphaeraceae fam. nov., and Limisphaeraceae fam. nov. within the Limisphaerales ord. Nov. (Verrucomicrobiota). Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 46, 126438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hivarkar, S.S.; Vasudevan, G.; Dhakephalkar, P.K.; Dagar, S.S. Description of Sporanaerobium hydrogeniformans gen. nov., sp. nov., an obligately anaerobic, hydrogen-producing bacterium isolated from Aravali hot spring in India. Arch. Microbiol. 2023, 205, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Lv, Y.Q.; Hu, C.J.; Xian, W.D.; Li, M.M.; Liu, L.; Liu, Z.T.; Tan, S.; Liu, W.Q.; Jiao, J.Y.; Li, W.J. Chelatococcus albus sp. nov., a bacterium isolated from hot spring microbial mat. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2024, 74, 006307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Thawai, C.; Tanasupawat, S.; Kudo, T. Micromonospora caldifontis sp. nov., isolated from hot spring soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2019, 69, 1336–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ganbat, D.; Jeong, G.E.; Oh, D.; Lee, D.W.; Lee, Y.J.; Kim, S.B.; Cha, I.T.; Chi, W.J.; Park, S.K.; Lee, J.S.; et al. Description of Microbacterium neungamense sp. nov. isolated from a hot spring. Arch. Microbiol. 2023, 205, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Saini, M.K.; Yoshida, S.; Sebastian, A.; Hara, E.; Tamaki, H.; Soulier, N.T.; Albert, I.; Hanada, S.; Tank, M.; Bryant, D.A. Elioraea tepida, sp. Nov., a moderately thermophilic aerobic anoxygenic phototrophic bacterium isolated from the mat community of an alkaline siliceous hot spring in yellowstone national park, WY, USA. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Itoh, T.; Onishi, M.; Kato, S.; Iino, T.; Sakamoto, M.; Kudo, T.; Takashina, T.; Ohkuma, M. Athalassotoga saccharophila gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from an acidic terrestrial hot spring, and proposal of Mesoaciditogales ord. nov. and Mesoaciditogaceae fam. nov. in the phylum Thermotogae. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2016, 66, 1045–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Mori, K.; Yamaguchi, K.; Sakiyama, Y.; Urabe, T.; Suzuki, K.I. Caldisericum exile gen. nov., sp. nov., an anaerobic, thermophilic, filamentous bacterium of a novel bacterial phylum, Caldiserica phyl. nov., originally called the candidate phylum OP5, and description of Caldisericaceae fam. nov., Caldisericales ord. nov. and Caldisericia classis nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2009, 59, 2894–2898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Iino, T.; Nakagawa, T.; Mori, K.; Harayama, S.; Suzuki, K. ichiro: Calditerrivibrio nitroreducens gen. nov., sp. nov., a thermophilic, nitrate-reducing bacterium isolated from a terrestrial hot spring in Japan. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2008, 58, 1675–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Tank, M.; Bryant, D.A. Nutrient requirements and growth physiology of the photoheterotrophic Acidobacterium, Chloracidobacterium thermophilum. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 132240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Albuquerque, L.; Rainey, F.A.; Nobre, M.F.; da Costa, M.S. Meiothermus granaticius sp. nov., a new slightly thermophilic red-pigmented species from the Azores. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 33, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Habib, N.; Khan, I.U.; Hussain, F.; Zhou, E.M.; Xiao, M.; Dong, L.; Zhi, X.Y.; Li, W.J. Meiothermus luteus sp. nov., a slightly thermophilic bacterium isolated from a hot spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2017, 67, 2910–2914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Dodsworth, J.A.; Ong, J.C.; Williams, A.J.; Dohnalkova, A.C.; Hedlund, B.P. Thermocrinis jamiesonii sp. nov., a thiosulfate-oxidizing, autotropic thermophile isolated from a geothermal spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2015, 65, 4769–4775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Dodsworth, J.A.; Gevorkian, J.; Despujos, F.; Cole, J.K.; Murugapiran, S.K.; Ming, H.; Li, W.J.; Zhang, G.; Dohnalkova, A.; Hedlund, B.P. Thermoflexus hugenholtzii gen. nov., sp. nov., a thermophilic, microaerophilic, filamentous bacterium representing a novel class in the Chloroflexi, Thermoflexia classis nov., and description of Thermoflexaceae fam. nov. and Thermoflexales ord. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 2119–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Hetzer, A.; McDonald, I.R.; Morgan, H.W. Venenivibrio stagnispumantis gen. nov., sp. nov., a thermophilic hydrogen-oxidizing bacterium isolated from Champagne Pool, Waiotapu, New Zealand. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2008, 58, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Tripathi, C.; Mishra, H.; Khurana, H.; Dwivedi, V.; Kamra, K.; Negi, R.K.; Lal, R. Complete genome analysis of Thermus parvatiensis and comparative genomics of Thermus spp. provide insights into genetic variability and evolution of natural competence as strategic survival attributes. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 273810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Khan, I.U.; Habib, N.; Hussain, F.; Xian, W.D.; Amin, A.; Zhou, E.M.; Ahmed, I.; Zhi, X.Y.; Li, W.J. Thermus caldifontis sp. nov., a thermophilic bacterium isolated from a hot spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2017, 67, 2868–2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mangrola, A.V.; Dudhagara, P.; Koringa, P.; Joshi, C.G.; Patel, R.K. Shotgun metagenomic sequencing based microbial diversity assessment of Lasundra hot spring, India. Genom. Data 2015, 4, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Wirajana, I.N.; Ariantari, N.P.; Shyu, D.J.; Vaghamshi, N.; Antaliya, K.; Dudhagara, P. Prokaryotic communities profiling of Indonesian hot springs using long-read Oxford Nanopore sequencing. BMC Res. Notes 2024, 17, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Thauer, R.K.; Kaster, A.K.; Seedorf, H.; Buckel, W.; Hedderich, R. Methanogenic archaea: Ecologically relevant differences in energy conservation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 6, 579–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Prokofeva, M.I.; Karaseva, A.I.; Tulenkov, A.S.; Klyukina, A.A.; Suzina, N.E.; Bale, N.J.; Mets, A.; Schleper, C.; Elcheninov, A.G.; Kochetkova, T.V. Polysaccharide-degrading archaea dominate acidic hot springs: Genomic and cultivation insights into a novel Thermoproteota lineage. mSystems 2025, 10, e00710-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Slobodkina, G.B.; Lebedinsky, A.V.; Chernyh, N.A.; Bonch-Osmolovskaya, E.A.; Slobodkin, A.I. Pyrobaculum ferrireducens sp. nov., a hyperthermophilic Fe (III)-, selenate- and arsenate-reducing crenarchaeon isolated from a hot spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Niederberger, T.D.; Götz, D.K.; McDonald, I.R.; Ronimus, R.S.; Morgan, H.W. Ignisphaera aggregans gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel hyperthermophilic crenarchaeote isolated from hot springs in Rotorua and Tokaanu, New Zealand. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2006, 56, 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Sako, Y.; Nunoura, T.; Uchida, A. Pyrobaculum oguniense sp. nov., a novel facultatively aerobic and hyperthermophilic archaeon growing at up to 97 degrees C. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2001, 51, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Kublanov, I.V.; Bidjieva, S.K.; Mardanov, A.V.; Bonch-Osmolovskaya, E.A. Desulfurococcus kamchatkensis sp. nov., a novel hyperthermophilic protein-degrading archaeon isolated from a Kamchatka hot spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2009, 59, 1743–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Zillig, W.; Gierl, A.; Schreiber, G.; Wunderl, S.; Janekovic, D.; Stetter, K.O.; Klenk, H.P. The archaebacterium Thermofilum pendens represents, a novel genus of the thermophilic, anaerobic sulfur respiring Thermoproteales. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 1983, 4, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Zayulina, K.S.; Kochetkova, T.V.; Piunova, U.E.; Ziganshin, R.H.; Podosokorskaya, O.A.; Kublanov, I.V. Novel Hyperthermophilic Crenarchaeon Thermofilum adornatum sp. nov. Uses GH1, GH3, and Two Novel Glycosidases for Cellulose Hydrolysis. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 510189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sakai, H.D.; Kurosawa, N. Saccharolobus caldissimus gen. nov., sp. nov., a facultatively anaerobic iron-reducing hyperthermophilic archaeon isolated from an acidic terrestrial hot spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2018, 68, 1271–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Osburn, M.R.; Amend, J.P. Thermogladius shockii gen. nov., sp. nov., a hyperthermophilic crenarchaeote from Yellowstone National Park, USA. Arch. Microbiol. 2011, 193, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Itoh, T.; Suzuki, K.I.; Nakase, T. Vulcanisaeta distributa gen. nov., sp. nov., and Vulcanisaeta souniana sp. nov., novel hyperthermophilic, rod-shaped crenarchaeotes isolated from hot springs in Japan. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2002, 52, 1097–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Toshchakov, S.V.; Korzhenkov, A.A.; Samarov, N.I.; Mazunin, I.O.; Mozhey, O.I.; Shmyr, I.S.; Derbikova, K.S.; Taranov, E.A.; Dominova, I.N.; Bonch-Osmolovskaya, E.A.; et al. Complete genome sequence of and proposal of Thermofilum uzonense sp. nov. a novel hyperthermophilic crenarchaeon and emended description of the genus. Stand. Genom. Sci. 2015, 10, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Prokofeva, M.I.; Kostrikina, N.A.; Kolganova, T.V.; Tourova, T.P.; Lysenko, A.M.; Lebedinsky, A.V.; Bonch-Osmolovskaya, E.A. Isolation of the anaerobic thermoacidophilic crenarchaeote Acidilobus saccharovorans sp. nov. and proposal of Acidilobales ord. nov., including Acidilobaceae fam. nov. and Caldisphaeraceae fam. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2009, 59, 3116–3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Yoshida, N.; Nakasato, M.; Ohmura, N.; Ando, A.; Saiki, H.; Ishii, M.; Igarashi, Y. Acidianus manzaensis sp. nov., a novel thermoacidophilic archaeon growing autotrophically by the oxidation of H2 with the reduction of Fe3+. Curr. Microbiol. 2006, 53, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Xiang, X.; Dong, X.; Huang, L. Sulfolobus tengchongensis sp. nov., a novel thermoacidophilic archaeon isolated from a hot spring in Tengchong, China. Extremophiles 2003, 7, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Itoh, T.; Suzuki, K.; Sanchez, P.C.; Nakase, T. Caldisphaera lagunensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel thermoacidophilic crenarchaeote isolated from a hot spring at Mt Maquiling, Philippines. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2003, 53, 1149–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Liu, L.J.; You, X.Y.; Guo, X.; Liu, S.J.; Jiang, C.Y. Metallosphaera cuprina sp. nov., an acidothermophilic, metal-mobilizing archaeon. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2011, 61, 2395–2400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Peng, T.J.; Liu, L.J.; Liu, C.; Yang, Z.F.; Liu, S.J.; Jiang, C.Y. Metallosphaera tengchongensis sp. nov., an acidothermophilic archaeon isolated from a hot spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 537–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Daebeler, A.; Herbold, C.W.; Vierheilig, J.; Sedlacek, C.J.; Pjevac, P.; Albertsen, M.; Kirkegaard, R.H.; de la Torre, J.R.; Daims, H.; Wagner, M. Cultivation and genomic analysis of “Candidatus Nitrosocaldus islandicus,” an obligately thermophilic, ammonia-oxidizing thaumarchaeon from a hot spring biofilm in Graendalur Valley, Iceland. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Tansey, M.R.; Brock, T.D. The upper temperature limit for eukaryotic organisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1972, 69, 2426–2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Ando, N.; Barquera, B.; Bartlett, D.H.; Boyd, E.; Burnim, A.A.; Byer, A.S.; Colman, D.; Gillilan, R.E.; Gruebele, M.; Makhatadze, G.; et al. The molecular basis for life in extreme environments. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2021, 50, 343–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Ciniglia, C.; Yoon, H.S.; Pollio, A.; Pinto, G.; Bhattacharya, D. Hidden biodiversity of the extremophilic Cyanidiales red algae. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13, 1827–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Clarke, A. The thermal limits to life on Earth. Int. J. Astrobiol. 2014, 13, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Baumgartner, M.; Eberhardt, S.; De Jonckheere, J.F.; Stetter, K.O. Tetramitus thermacidophilus n. sp., an amoeboflagellate from acidic hot springs. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2009, 56, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Dudhagara, P.; Ghelani, A.; Bhatt, S. Structural characterization of mycobiome from the metagenome of Lonar Lake sediment using next generation sequencing. Ind. J. Sci. 2015, 12, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  162. Gross, W.; Schnarrenberger, C. Heterotrophic Growth of Two Strains of the Acido-Thermophilic Red Alga Galdieria sulphuraria. Plant Cell Physiol. 1995, 36, 633–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Barbier, G.; Oesterhelt, C.; Larson, M.D.; Halgren, R.G.; Wilkerson, C.; Garavito, R.M.; Benning, C.; Weber, A.P. Comparative genomics of two closely related unicellular thermo-acidophilic red algae, Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae, reveals the molecular basis of the metabolic flexibility of Galdieria sulphuraria and significant differences in carbohydrate metabolism of both algae. Plant Physiol. 2005, 137, 460–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Chien, A.; Edgar, D.B.; Trela, J.M. Deoxyribonucleic acid polymerase from the extreme thermophile Thermus aquaticus. J. Bacteriol. 1976, 127, 1550–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Cariello, N.F.; Swenberg, J.A.; Skopek, T.R. Fidelity of Thermococcus litoralis DNA polymerase (VentTM) in PCR determined by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Nucleic Acids Res. 1991, 19, 4193–4198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Dudhgara, P.R.; Sunil, B.; Anjana, G. Hide dehairing and laundry detergent compatibility testing of thermostable and solvents tolerant alkaline protease from hot spring isolate Bacillus cohnii U3. Online J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 15, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Bhagat, D.; Dudhagara, P.; Desai, P. Production and characterization of thermo-alkalistable xylanase from geothermal spring isolate. CIBTech 2014, 3, 36–45. [Google Scholar]
  168. Turner, P.; Mamo, G.; Karlsson, E.N. Potential and utilization of thermophiles and thermostable enzymes in biorefining. Microb. Cell Fact. 2007, 6, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Blumer-Schuette, S.E.; Kataeva, I.; Westpheling, J.; Adams, M.W.; Kelly, R.M. Extremely thermophilic microorganisms for biomass conversion: Status and prospects. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2008, 19, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Taylor, M.P.; Eley, K.L.; Martin, S.; Tuffin, M.I.; Burton, S.G.; Cowan, D.A. Thermophilic ethanologenesis: Future prospects for second-generation bioethanol production. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Himmel, M.E.; Ding, S.Y.; Johnson, D.K.; Adney, W.S.; Nimlos, M.R.; Brady, J.W.; Foust, T.D. Biomass recalcitrance: Engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 2007, 315, 804–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Dudhagara, P.; Bhavasar, S.; Ghelani, A.; Bhatt, S. Isolation, characterization and investing the industrial applications of thermostable and solvent tolerant serine protease from hot spring isolated thermophililic Bacillus licheniformis U1. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. 2014, 2, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. O’connor, E.; Shand, R.F. Halocins and sulfolobicins: The emerging story of archaeal protein and peptide antibiotics. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2002, 28, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Atanasova, N.S.; Pietilä, M.K.; Oksanen, H.M. Diverse antimicrobial interactions of halophilic archaea and bacteria extend over geographical distances and cross the domain barrier. MicrobiologyOpen 2013, 2, 811–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Özdemir, S.C.; Uzel, A. Bioprospecting of hot springs and compost in West Anatolia regarding phytase producing thermophilic fungi. Sydowia 2020, 72, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Panda, T.; Gowrishankar, B.S. Production and applications of esterases. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 67, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Gomes, J.; Steiner, W. The biocatalytic potential of extremophiles and extremozymes. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2004, 42, 223–225. [Google Scholar]
  178. Tournier, V.; Topham, C.M.; Gilles, A.; David, B.; Folgoas, C.; Moya-Leclair, E.; Kamionka, E.; Desrousseaux, M.L.; Texier, H.; Gavalda, S.; et al. An engineered PET depolymerase to break down and recycle plastic bottles. Nature 2020, 580, 216–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Ronkvist, Å.M.; Xie, W.; Lu, W.; Gross, R.A. Cutinase-catalyzed hydrolysis of poly (ethylene terephthalate). Macromolecules 2009, 42, 5128–5138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Austin, H.P.; Allen, M.D.; Donohoe, B.S.; Rorrer, N.A.; Kearns, F.L.; Silveira, R.L.; Pollard, B.C.; Dominick, G.; Duman, R.; El Omari, K.; et al. Characterization and engineering of a plastic-degrading aromatic polyesterase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E4350–E4357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Takehana, T.; Taniguchi, I.; Yamaji, H.; Maeda, Y.; Toyohara, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Kimura, Y.; Oda, K. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly (ethylene terephthalate). Science 2016, 351, 1196–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Norris, P.R.; Burton, N.P.; Foulis, N.A. Acidophiles in bioreactor mineral processing. Extremophiles 2000, 4, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Lloyd, J.R. Microbial reduction of metals and radionuclides. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 27, 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Krivoruchko, A.; Kuyukina, M.; Peshkur, T.; Cunningham, C.J.; Ivshina, I. Rhodococcus Strains from the Specialized Collection of Alkanotrophs for Biodegradation of Aromatic Compounds. Molecules 2023, 28, 2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. LaPara, T.M.; Nakatsu, C.H.; Pantea, L.; Alleman, J.E. Phylogenetic analysis of bacterial communities in mesophilic and thermophilic bioreactors treating pharmaceutical wastewater. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 3951–3959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Bai, R.; Li, C.; Xiao, Y.; Sharma, M.; Zhang, F.; Zhao, Y.; Enix, D. Effectiveness of spa therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e17092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Fioravanti, A.; Giannitti, C.; Bellisai, B.; Iacoponi, F.; Galeazzi, M. Efficacy of balneotherapy on pain, function and quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2012, 56, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Weaver, C.M.; Alexander, D.D.; Boushey, C.J.; Dawson-Hughes, B.; Lappe, J.M.; LeBoff, M.S.; Liu, S.; Looker, A.C.; Wallace, T.C.; Wang, D.D. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and risk of fractures: An updated meta-analysis from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos. Int. 2016, 27, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Nielsen, F.H.; Lukaski, H.C. Update on the relationship between magnesium and exercise. Magnes. Res. 2006, 19, 180–189. [Google Scholar]
  190. Protano, C.; Vitali, M.; De Giorgi, A.; Marotta, D.; Crucianelli, S.; Fontana, M. Balneotherapy using thermal mineral water baths and dermatological diseases: A systematic review. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2024, 68, 1005–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Barel, A.; Calomme, M.; Timchenko, A.; De Paepe, K.; Demeester, N.; Rogiers, V.; Clarys, P.; Vanden Berghe, D. Effect of oral intake of choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid on skin, nails and hair in women with photodamaged skin. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2005, 297, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Abbaspour, N.; Hurrell, R.; Kelishadi, R. Review on iron and its importance for human health. J. Res. Med. Sci. Off. J. Isfahan Univ. Med. Sci. 2014, 19, 164. [Google Scholar]
  193. He, F.J.; MacGregor, G.A. Reducing population salt intake worldwide: From evidence to implementation. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2010, 52, 363–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Schrauzer, G.N. Lithium: Occurrence, dietary intakes, nutritional essentiality. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2002, 21, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Nielsen, F.H. Update on human health effects of boron. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2014, 28, 383–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Zimmermann, M.B.; Andersson, M. Assessment of iodine nutrition in populations: Past, present, and future. Nutr. Rev. 2012, 70, 553–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Ascenzi, P.; Bettinelli, M.; Boffi, A.; Botta, M.; De Simone, G.; Luchinat, C.; Marengo, E.; Mei, H.; Aime, S. Rare earth elements (REE) in biology and medicine. Rend. Lincei. Sci. Fis. Nat. 2020, 31, 821–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Protano, C.; Fontana, M.; De Giorgi, A.; Marotta, D.; Cocomello, N.; Crucianelli, S.; Del Cimmuto, A.; Vitali, M. Balneotherapy for osteoarthritis: A systematic review. Rheumatol. Int. 2023, 43, 1597–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Nasermoaddeli, A.; Kagamimori, S. Balneotherapy in medicine: A review. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2005, 10, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Antonelli, M.; Donelli, D. Effects of balneotherapy and spa therapy on levels of cortisol as a stress biomarker: A systematic review. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2018, 62, 913–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Morer, C.; Roques, C.F.; Françon, A.; Forestier, R.; Maraver, F. The role of mineral elements and other chemical compounds used in balneology: Data from double-blind randomized clinical trials. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2017, 61, 2159–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Fioravanti, A.; Karagülle, M.; Bender, T.; Karagülle, M.Z. Balneotherapy in osteoarthritis: Facts, fiction and gaps in knowledge. Eur. J. Integr. Med. 2017, 9, 148–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Breede, K.; Dzebisashvili, K.; Liu, X.; Falcone, G. A systematic review of enhanced (or engineered) geothermal systems: Past, present and future. Geotherm. Energy 2013, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Goodenough, K.M.; Wall, F.; Merriman, D. The rare earth elements: Demand, global resources, and challenges for resourcing future generations. Nat. Resour. Res. 2018, 27, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Neupane, G.; Wendt, D.S. Assessment of mineral resources in geothermal brines in the US. In Proceedings of the 42nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA, USA, 13–15 February 2017; pp. 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  206. Zhao, Z.; Qiu, Z.; Yang, J.; Lu, S.; Cao, L.; Zhang, W.; Xu, Y. Recovery of rare earth elements from spent fluid catalytic cracking catalysts using leaching and solvent extraction techniques. Hydrometallurgy 2017, 167, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Gkika, D.A.; Chalaris, M.; Kyzas, G.Z. Review of methods for obtaining rare earth elements from recycling and their impact on the environment and human health. Processes 2024, 12, 1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Herrington, R. Road map to mineral supply. Nat. Geosci. 2013, 6, 892–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Talukder, M.B.; Hossain, S.E.; Al Ferdous, F.; Khan, M.R. Exploring the Rise of Wellness Tourism: Trends, Benefits, and Market Potential. In AI Technologies and Advancements for Psychological Well-Being and Healthcare; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2025; pp. 351–378. [Google Scholar]
  210. Bull, A.T.; Stach, J.E. Marine actinobacteria: New opportunities for natural product search and discovery. Trends Microbiol. 2007, 15, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Axelsson, G.; Gunnlaugsson, E.; Jónasson, T.; Ólafsson, M. Low-temperature geothermal utilization in Iceland–Decades of experience. Geothermics 2010, 39, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Grant, M. Geothermal Reservoir Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  213. Rybach, L.; Mongillo, M. Geothermal sustainability-a review with identified research needs. GRC Trans. 2006, 30, 1083–1090. [Google Scholar]
  214. Shortall, R.; Davidsdottir, B.; Axelsson, G. Geothermal energy for sustainable development: A review of sustainability impacts and assessment frameworks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Breitbart, M.; Wegley, L.; Leeds, S.; Schoenfeld, T.; Rohwer, F. Phage community dynamics in hot springs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 1633–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Suttle, C.A. Marine viruses—Major players in the global ecosystem. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 5, 801–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Prestel, E.; Regeard, C.; Salamitou, S.; Neveu, J.; DuBow, M.S. The bacteria and bacteriophages from a Mesquite Flats site of the Death Valley desert. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2013, 103, 1329–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Soucy, S.M.; Huang, J.; Gogarten, J.P. Horizontal gene transfer: Building the web of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2015, 16, 472–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Zhaxybayeva, O.; Swithers, K.S.; Lapierre, P.; Fournier, G.P.; Bickhart, D.M.; DeBoy, R.T.; Nelson, K.E.; Nesbø, C.L.; Doolittle, W.F.; Gogarten, J.P.; et al. On the chimeric nature, thermophilic origin, and phylogenetic placement of the Thermotogales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 5865–5870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. LA, A.Z.; Gomez, F.; Zettler, E.; Keenan, B.G.; Amils, R.; Sogin, M.L. Microbiology: Eukaryotic diversity in Spain’s River of Fire. Nature 2002, 417, 137. [Google Scholar]
  221. Ward, D.M.; Bateson, M.M.; Ferris, M.J.; Kühl, M.; Wieland, A.; Koeppel, A.; Cohan, F.M. Cyanobacterial ecotypes in the microbial mat community of Mushroom Spring (Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming) as species-like units linking microbial community composition, structure and function. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 361, 1997–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Stepanauskas, R. Single cell genomics: An individual look at microbes. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2012, 15, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Miller, S.R.; Strong, A.L.; Jones, K.L.; Ungerer, M.C. Bar-coded pyrosequencing reveals shared bacterial community properties along the temperature gradients of two alkaline hot springs in Yellowstone National Park. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 4565–4572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Rouwet, D.; Tassi, F.; Mora-Amador, R.; Sandri, L.; Chiarini, V. Past, present and future of volcanic lake monitoring. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2014, 272, 78–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Inskeep, W.P.; Ackerman, G.G.; Taylor, W.P.; Kozubal, M.; Korf, S.; Macur, R.E. On the energetics of chemolithotrophy in nonequilibrium systems: Case studies of geothermal springs in Yellowstone National Park. Geobiology 2005, 3, 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Li, Y.; Abu Bakar, N.A.; Ismail, N.A.; Mohd Ariffin, N.F.; Mundher, R. Experts’ perspectives on inclusive governance for protecting hot spring landscapes in China: Barriers and implications. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Gleeson, T.; Cuthbert, M.; Ferguson, G.; Perrone, D. Global groundwater sustainability, resources, and systems in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2020, 48, 431–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 2. Hot springs provide all essential attributes to sustain microbial life.
Figure 2. Hot springs provide all essential attributes to sustain microbial life.
Bacteria 05 00012 g002
Figure 3. Cross-sectional ecosystem diagram showing three interconnected habitat types (biofilms, water column, sediments) with distinct microbial communities and biogeochemical processes. Arrows indicate material and energy flow between niches. Temperature and chemical gradients shown along vertical axis.
Figure 3. Cross-sectional ecosystem diagram showing three interconnected habitat types (biofilms, water column, sediments) with distinct microbial communities and biogeochemical processes. Arrows indicate material and energy flow between niches. Temperature and chemical gradients shown along vertical axis.
Bacteria 05 00012 g003
Figure 4. Temperature-scale visualization showing four distinct classes of thermophilic microorganisms with color gradient from green (facultative thermophiles, 25–50 °C) through yellow (moderate thermophiles, 40–70 °C) and orange (obligate/extreme thermophiles, 50–80 °C) to red (hyperthermophiles, 65–122 °C). Representative genera indicated for each category: Bacillus stearothermophilus (facultative), Thermoanaerobacter thermohydrosulfuricus (moderate), Thermus thermophilus (obligate/extreme), and Methanopyrus kandleri (hyperthermophile, maximum growth temperature 122 °C). Representative genera selected based on distinct optimal growth temperature ranges and biotechnological significance.
Figure 4. Temperature-scale visualization showing four distinct classes of thermophilic microorganisms with color gradient from green (facultative thermophiles, 25–50 °C) through yellow (moderate thermophiles, 40–70 °C) and orange (obligate/extreme thermophiles, 50–80 °C) to red (hyperthermophiles, 65–122 °C). Representative genera indicated for each category: Bacillus stearothermophilus (facultative), Thermoanaerobacter thermohydrosulfuricus (moderate), Thermus thermophilus (obligate/extreme), and Methanopyrus kandleri (hyperthermophile, maximum growth temperature 122 °C). Representative genera selected based on distinct optimal growth temperature ranges and biotechnological significance.
Bacteria 05 00012 g004
Figure 6. Integrated framework of the hot spring bioeconomy demonstrating interconnections between major sectors: tourism and wellness (generating ~USD 57 billion globally), bioprospecting for thermostable enzymes and bioactive metabolites, and mineral/energy extraction. Arrows indicate material flows and value chain relationships between sectors; colors distinguish different economic activities and stakeholder groups; symbols represent key integration points and regulatory frameworks; dashed lines show potential future development pathways requiring further research and investment.
Figure 6. Integrated framework of the hot spring bioeconomy demonstrating interconnections between major sectors: tourism and wellness (generating ~USD 57 billion globally), bioprospecting for thermostable enzymes and bioactive metabolites, and mineral/energy extraction. Arrows indicate material flows and value chain relationships between sectors; colors distinguish different economic activities and stakeholder groups; symbols represent key integration points and regulatory frameworks; dashed lines show potential future development pathways requiring further research and investment.
Bacteria 05 00012 g006
Table 1. Representative Thermophilic Bacterial Species from Hot Springs (2000–2025).
Table 1. Representative Thermophilic Bacterial Species from Hot Springs (2000–2025).
Sr. No.SpeciesLocationCountryT (°C)pHEnergy SourcePrimary MetabolismO2 RequirementReference
1Tenuifilum osseticum sp. nov.Hydrothermal springRussia (North Ossetia)556.8–7.2ChemoorganotrophFermentation, polysaccharide metabolismAnaerobe[112]
2Thermomonas flagellata sp. nov.Hot spring sediments, YunnanChina457.0ChemoorganotrophRespirationAerobic[113]
3Marmoricola caldifontis sp. nov.Hot spring sediment, TibetChina35–506.5–8.0ChemoorganotrophRespirationAerobic[114]
4Arenimonas fontis sp. nov.Geothermal spring, ChukotkaRussia (Arctic)506.0–9.5ChemoorganoheterotrophPolysaccharide metabolismAerobic[115]
5Crenotalea thermophila gen. nov.Sulfur-turf biofilm, OkuhodakaJapan45–505.5–7.5Chemolithotroph/ChemoorganotrophFermentation, nitrate respirationAerobic[116]
6Thermotoga profunda sp. nov.Terrestrial hot springJapan657.4ChemoheterotrophThiosulfate-reductionAnaerobe[117]
7Fontisphaera persica gen. nov.Hot spring water, BaikalRussia456.8ChemoorganoheterotrophPolysaccharide metabolismFacultative anaerobe[118]
8Sporanaerobium hydrogeniformans gen. nov.Aravali hot spring, RatnagiriIndia428.0ChemoorganotrophAnaerobic fermentation, H2 productionObligate anaerobe[119]
9Chelatococcus albus sp. nov.Microbial mat, TengchongChina (Yunnan)376.0ChemoorganotrophAerobic respirationAerobe[120]
10Micromonospora solifontis sp. nov.Hot spring soil, Chiang RaiThailand305.0–8.0ChemoorganotrophAerobic respirationAerobe[121]
11Microbacterium neungamense sp. nov.Hot spring, ChungjuSouth Korea356.0–10.0ChemoorganotrophAerobic respirationAerobe[122]
12Elioraea tepida sp. nov.Microbial mats, Mushroom SpringUSA (Yellowstone)477.0–7.5Chemoheterotroph/PhotoheterotrophAerobic respiration, photophosphorylationAerobe[123]
13Cohnella caldifontis sp. nov.Hot spring soil, TengchongChina (Yunnan)457.0ChemoorganotrophAerobic respiration, sulfur metabolismObligate aerobe[121]
14Athalassotoga saccharophila gen. nov.Acidic hot spring, Oku-ShiobaraJapan555.5–6.0HeterotrophIron oxidationAnaerobic[124]
15Caldisericum exile gen. nov.Hot springJapan655.5–7.5ChemoheterotrophSulfur-reductionAnaerobe[125]
16Calditerrivibrio nitroreducens gen. nov.Hot spring water, YumataJapan (Nagano)557.25ChemoorganoheterotrophNitrate-reductionAnaerobe[126]
17Chloracidobacterium thermophilum gen. nov.Microbial mats, Octopus SpringUSA (Yellowstone)517.0PhotoheterotrophAnoxygenic photosynthesisAnoxygenic microaerophilic[127]
18Fervidobacterium riparium sp. nov.Hot spring water, Kunashir IslandRussia657.8ChemoorganotrophFermentationAnaerobe[128]
19Meiothermus granaticius sp. nov.Hot spring, FurnasPortugal (Azores)477.5ChemoorganoheterotrophNitrate-reduction, aerobic respirationAerobe[128]
20Meiothermus hypogaeus sp. nov.Subsurface hot spring (1000 m)Japan507.6ChemoorganoheterotrophNitrate-reduction, aerobic respirationAerobe[125]
21Meiothermus luteus sp. nov.Hot spring sediment, TengchongChina (Yunnan)607.5ChemoorganoheterotrophPolysaccharide metabolism, aerobic respirationAerobe[129]
22Thermocrinis jamiesonii sp. nov.Great Boiling SpringUSA (Nevada)807.25Chemolithoautotroph/ChemolithoheterotrophThiosulfate-oxidationMicroaerobe[130]
23Thermoflexus hugenholtzii gen. nov.Great Boiling SpringUSA (Nevada)737.25HeterotrophFermentationFacultative anaerobe[131]
24Venenivibrio stagnispumantis gen. nov.Terrestrial hot spring, WaiotapuNew Zealand705.4ChemolithotrophHydrogen-oxidationMicroaerobe[132]
25Thermus parvatiensis sp. nov.Hot spring, ManikaranIndia (Himachal Pradesh)707.2HeterotrophPolysaccharide metabolism, aerobic respirationAerobe[133]
26Thermus amyloliquefaciens sp. nov.Hot spring, NiujieChina (Yunnan)627.0HeterotrophNitrate-reduction, aerobic respirationAerobe[134]
Table 2. Representative Thermophilic Archaeal Species from Hot Springs (2000–2025).
Table 2. Representative Thermophilic Archaeal Species from Hot Springs (2000–2025).
Sr. No.SpeciesPhylumLocationCountryT (°C)pHEnergy SourcePrimary MetabolismO2 RequirementReference
1Tardisphaera miroshnichenkoae gen. nov.ThermoproteotaMud spring, KamchatkaRussia584.2HeterotrophPolysaccharide metabolismFacultative aerobe[138]
2Tardisphaera saccharovorans sp. nov.ThermoproteotaMud spring, KamchatkaRussia604.5HeterotrophPolysaccharide metabolismFacultative aerobe[138]
3Pyrobaculum calidifontis sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaLos Baños hot springPhilippines92.57.0HeterotrophSulfur-reduction, proteinaceous metabolismFacultative anaerobe[139]
4Pyrobaculum ferrireducens sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaUzon CalderaRussia (Kamchatka)856.5ChemolithoautotrophProteinaceous metabolismAnaerobe[140]
5Ignisphaera aggregans gen. nov.CrenarchaeotaHot springs, Rotorua/TokaanuNew Zealand93.56.4HeterotrophFermentationAnaerobe[141]
6Pyrobaculum oguniense sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaOguni-cho hot springJapan926.5HeterotrophSulfur-reduction, proteinaceous metabolismFacultative anaerobe[142]
7Desulfurococcus kamchatkensis sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaUzon CalderaRussia (Kamchatka)856.5OrganotrophicSulfur-reductionAnaerobe[143]
8Sulfolobus tengchongensis sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaAcidic hot spring, TengchongChina (Yunnan)853.5Lithotroph/HeterotrophSulfur-oxidation, aerobic respirationAerobe[144]
9Thermofilum adornatum sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaHot springUnknown805.75ChemoorganoheterotrophPolysaccharide metabolismAnaerobe[145]
10Saccharolobus caldissimus gen. nov.CrenarchaeotaHakone Ohwaku-daniJapan853.0ChemolithotrophIron-reduction, polysaccharide metabolismFacultative anaerobe[146]
11Thermogladius shockii gen. nov.CrenarchaeotaWashburn hot springUSA (Yellowstone)845.5OrganoheterotrophFermentationAnaerobe[147]
12Vulcanisaeta distributa gen. nov.CrenarchaeotaHot spring areasJapan (Eastern)87.54.25HeterotrophSulfur-reduction, polysaccharide metabolismAnaerobe[148]
13Thermofilum uzonense sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaKamchatka hot springRussia856.25ChemoorganotrophPolysaccharide metabolismAnaerobe[149]
14Acidilobus saccharovorans sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaAcidic hot springRussia (Kamchatka)82.53.75HeterotrophFermentationAnaerobe[150]
15Acidianus manzaensis sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaHot spring sampleChina (Yunnan)652.0HeterotrophFermentation, monosaccharide metabolismFacultative anaerobe[151]
16Sulfolobus tokodaii sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaBeppu Hot SpringsJapan (Kyushu)802.75ChemoheterotrophSulfur-oxidation, aerobic respirationAnaerobe[152]
17Caldisphaera lagunensis gen. nov.CrenarchaeotaMt Maquiling acidic hot springPhilippines72.53.75HeterotrophFermentation, sulfate-reductionAnaerobe[153]
18Metallosphaera cuprina sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaSulfuric hot spring, TengchongChina (Yunnan)703.0ChemolithoautotrophAerobic respirationAerobe[154]
19Metallosphaera tengchongensis sp. nov.CrenarchaeotaSulfuric hot spring, TengchongChina (Yunnan)703.5Chemolithoautotroph/HeterotrophAerobic respirationAerobe[155]
20Candidatus Nitrosocaldus islandicus *ThaumarchaeotaHot spring biofilm, GraendalurIceland657.5ChemolithoautotrophAmmonia oxidationAerobe[156]
* Note: The entry for Candidatus Nitrosocaldus islandicus represents a microorganism characterized through cultivation-independent genomic approaches (metagenomics and enrichment culture transcriptomics). While not formally isolated in pure culture, its metabolic functions and genomic characteristics are well-characterized, representing an important functional guild of thermophilic ammonia-oxidizing archaea [156].
Table 3. Primary minerals from hot springs and their health applications.
Table 3. Primary minerals from hot springs and their health applications.
MineralChemical FormConcentration (ppm)OriginHealth ApplicationsIndustrial ApplicationsReference
CalciumCa2+50–500Limestone, carbonate rocksBone health, muscle function, neuromuscular transmissionCement, glass, pharmaceuticals[189]
MagnesiumMg2+20–200Magnesium silicates, carbonatesMuscle relaxation, pain relief, sleep quality, stress reductionIndustrial catalysts, alloys[190]
Sulfur (elemental/H2S)S, H2S, SO42−10–500Sulfide mineral oxidationSkin conditions, joint pain, arthritis relief, eczemaChemical industry, disinfectants[191]
SilicaSiO2 (colloidal)50–300Quartz dissolutionSkin health, collagen synthesis, hair/nail strengthElectronics, glass, cosmetics[192]
IronFe2+/Fe3+5–50Iron-rich mineralsBlood circulation, oxygen transport, anemia treatmentSteel production, catalysts[193]
SodiumNa+100–1000Salt minerals, haliteElectrolyte balance, nerve functionChemical industry, salt production[194]
LithiumLi+0.1–2Lithium mineralsMood stabilization, mental health, bipolar disorder treatmentBattery production, pharmaceuticals[195]
BoronB(OH)3, B(OH)41–50Borax, borate mineralsBone health, joint function, brain cognitionGlass production, ceramics, cosmetics[196]
IodineI0.1–1Iodide mineralsThyroid function, metabolic regulationChemical industry, disinfectants[197]
Rare Earth Elements (La, Ce, Nd, etc.)REE3+0.01–50Complex mineralsEmerging medical researchCatalysts, magnets, electronics, green technology[198]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wirajana, I.N.; Vaghamshi, N.; Ariantari, N.P.; Sawur, A.B.; Ratnayani, K.; Antaliya, K.; Atara, S.; Ghelani, A.; Dudhagara, D.; Dudhagara, P. Hot Springs as Reservoirs of Valuable Microbes, Metabolites, and Minerals with Ecological, Biotechnological and Bioeconomic Perspectives. Bacteria 2026, 5, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria5010012

AMA Style

Wirajana IN, Vaghamshi N, Ariantari NP, Sawur AB, Ratnayani K, Antaliya K, Atara S, Ghelani A, Dudhagara D, Dudhagara P. Hot Springs as Reservoirs of Valuable Microbes, Metabolites, and Minerals with Ecological, Biotechnological and Bioeconomic Perspectives. Bacteria. 2026; 5(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria5010012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wirajana, I Nengah, Nilam Vaghamshi, Ni Putu Ariantari, Agustino Beatronaldo Sawur, Ketut Ratnayani, Komal Antaliya, Smita Atara, Anjana Ghelani, Dushyant Dudhagara, and Pravin Dudhagara. 2026. "Hot Springs as Reservoirs of Valuable Microbes, Metabolites, and Minerals with Ecological, Biotechnological and Bioeconomic Perspectives" Bacteria 5, no. 1: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria5010012

APA Style

Wirajana, I. N., Vaghamshi, N., Ariantari, N. P., Sawur, A. B., Ratnayani, K., Antaliya, K., Atara, S., Ghelani, A., Dudhagara, D., & Dudhagara, P. (2026). Hot Springs as Reservoirs of Valuable Microbes, Metabolites, and Minerals with Ecological, Biotechnological and Bioeconomic Perspectives. Bacteria, 5(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria5010012

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop