4.8 Article

Mercury Uptake by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132: Passive or Active?

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 11, 页码 6264-6272

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b00047

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Biological and Environmental Research within the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as part of the Mercury Science Focus Area project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  2. DOE
  3. Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have identified HgcAB proteins as being responsible for mercury [Hg(II)] methylation by certain anaerobic microorganisms. However, it remains controversial whether microbes take up Hg(II) passively or actively. Here, we examine the dynamics of concurrent Hg(II) adsorption, uptake, and methylation by both viable and inactivated cells (heat-killed or starved) or spheroplasts of the sulfate-reducing bacterium Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132 in laboratory incubations. We show that, without addition of thiols, >60% of the added Hg(II) (25 nM) was taken up passively in 48 h by live and inactivated cells and also by cells treated with the proton gradient uncoupler, carbonylcyanide-3-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP). Inactivation abolished Hg(II) methylation, but the cells continued taking up Hg(II), likely through competitive binding or ligand exchange of Hg(II) by intracellular proteins or thiol-containing cellular components. Similarly, treatment with CCCP impaired the ability of spheroplasts to methylate Hg(II) but did not stop Hg(II) uptake. Spheroplasts showed a greater capacity to adsorb Hg(II) than whole cells, and the level of cytoplasmic membrane-bound Hg(II) correlated well with MeHg production, as Hg(II) methylation is associated with cytoplasmic HgcAB. Our results indicate that active metabolism is not required for cellular Hg(II) uptake, thereby providing an improved understanding of Hg(II) bioavailability for methylation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据