4.6 Article

Comparative Proteome Analysis Reveals Four Novel Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) Granule-Associated Proteins in Ralstonia eutropha H16

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 81, 期 5, 页码 1838-1849

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.03791-14

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  2. Landesstiftung Baden Wurttemberg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identification of proteins that were present in a polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) granule fraction isolated from Ralstonia eutropha but absent in the soluble, membrane, and membrane-associated fractions revealed the presence of only 12 polypeptides with PHB-specific locations plus 4 previously known PHB-associated proteins with multiple locations. None of the previously postulated PHB depolymerase isoenzymes ( PhaZa2 to PhaZa5, PhaZd1, and PhaZd2) and none of the two known 3-hydroxybutyrate oligomer hydrolases (PhaZb and PhaZc) were significantly present in isolated PHB granules. Four polypeptides were found that had not yet been identified in PHB granules. Three of the novel proteins are putative alpha/beta-hydrolases, and two of those (A0671 and B1632) have a PHB synthase/depolymerase signature. The third novel protein (A0225) is a patatin-like phospholipase, a type of enzyme that has not been described for PHB granules of any PHB-accumulating species. No function has been ascribed to the fourth protein (A2001), but its encoding gene forms an operon with phaB2 (acetoacetyl-coenzyme A [CoA] reductase) and phaC2 (PHB synthase), and this is in line with a putative function in PHB metabolism. The localization of the four new proteins at the PHB granule surface was confirmed in vivo by fluorescence microscopy of constructed fusion proteins with enhanced yellow fluorescent protein (eYFP). Deletion of A0671 and B1632 had a minor but detectable effect on the PHB mobilization ability in the stationary growth phase of nutrient broth (NB)-gluconate cells, confirming the functional involvement of both proteins in PHB metabolism.

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

4.6
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