Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, September 2006, p. 6183-6193, Vol. 72, No. 9
0099-2240/06/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/AEM.00947-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Hirofumi Hara,
Daisuke Miyazawa,
Julian E. Davies,
Lindsay D. Eltis, and
William W. Mohn*
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3, Canada1
Received 20 April 2006/ Accepted 21 June 2006
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Fukuda and coworkers have characterized the BPH pathway of RHA1, which degrades biphenyl via ring dihydroxylation and oxygenolytic cleavage of a catecholic metabolite (Fig. 1). In RHA1, the same pathway also degrades other substituted benzenes, such as ETB and isopropylbenzene, as well as PCBs. A striking characteristic of RHA1 is the large number of genes potentially encoding multiple isozymes of the BPH pathway. Three gene clusters encoding ring-hydroxylating dioxygenase systems, bphAaAbAcAd (formerly bphA1A2A3A4), etbAa1Ab1C (formerly etbA1A2C), and etbAa2Ab2AcD2 (formerly ebdA1A2A3-etbD2), were detected on large linear plasmids (15, 19, 20, 30, 38). These clusters encode complete (four-component) or partial hydroxylating dioxygenase systems as well as associated enzymes for subsequent steps of the pathway. But none of the clusters encodes the complete BPH pathway. Additional genes potentially encoding other steps of the BPH pathway are distributed throughout the RHA1 genome. In total, published evidence exists for six homologues of bphC (27), three homologues of bphD (38), and two homologues each of bphE and bphF (28). The recently completed genome sequence for RHA1 (22) revealed additional homologues of BPH pathway enzymes as summarized in Fig. 1. It is proposed that this complex suite of enzymes contributes to the exceptional ability of RHA1 to degrade PCBs (27). Such multiplicity of catabolic genes appears to be typical of rhodococci (37).
|
Genes encoding BEN biodegradation have also been identified in RHA1. A chromosomally located operon, benABCDK, was characterized (14). Proteomic analysis confirmed the upregulation of some products of the ben, cat (catechol degradation), and pca (protocatechuate degradation) genes, predicted to encode complete degradation of benzoate, during growth on that compound (25). The ben, cat, and pca genes are also predicted to function in growth on BPH, which yields BEN as an intermediate (Fig. 1).
Fragmentary information about the regulation of the above-described BPH pathway genes in RHA1 is available. Recent work suggests that the bphS1T1 genes, encoding a two-component regulatory system, mediate the induction of a BPH regulon consisting of operons involved in the degradation of BPH, ETB, and other aromatic compounds (32, 33). The bphS gene is essential for induction of the pathway by BPH, but it is possible that homologous regulatory genes permit induction by other compounds potentially degraded by the same pathway. Of the bphC homologues, bphC1, etbC, and ro04541 were shown by slot blot analysis to be inducibly expressed during growth on both BPH and ETB (27). The bphG1E1F1 genes were shown by reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR analysis to be inducibly expressed during growth on both BPH and ETB (28). The limited evidence available does not indicate whether there is differential regulation of various isozymes of the BPH pathway with the different substrates of the pathway. This poorly understood regulatory system may have important consequences for the degradation potential of RHA1.
This study addressed important outstanding questions about the functions of the many genes encoding BPH, ETB, and BEN degradation by RHA1 and their regulation. To do so, we analyzed the complete genome sequence of RHA1 and developed and employed a microarray with probes for 8,313 genes (about 90% of those in the genome). We examined gene expression in RHA1 during exponential growth on the above-described three compounds. Quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) was used to verify results for selected genes.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Triplicate cultures on each substrate were used to estimate growth rates (± standard deviations) in numbers of doublings/hour, which were 0.04 ± 0.02 on BPH, 0.05 ± 0.04 on ETB, 0.05 ± 0.01 on PYR, and 0.13 ± 0.02 on BEN. Another set of triplicate cultures was used for transcriptomic analysis. A third set of triplicate cultures was used for Q-PCR analysis.
Total RNA isolation.
Total RNA was isolated from RHA1 cells as follows. Cell pellets from 250 ml of culture were suspended in 2 ml of cold diethyl pyrocarbonate-treated water with EDTA (5 mM). Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and acidified phenol (pH 5.0) were added at final concentrations of 1.25% and 0.25% (vol/vol), respectively, and in a 50-ml Falcon tube, glass beads (3-mm diameter) were added to make a final volume of 10 ml. The tubes were transferred to a 64°C water bath and subsequently vortexed 10 times for 1 min, alternating with 1-min intervals in the water bath to keep the solution hot. To each sample, 0.07 ml of 3.0 M sodium acetate (pH 5.4) plus 2.5 ml of acidified phenol-chloroform (1:1, vol/vol) was added and followed by further vortexing for 10 min as described above. The liquid phases were transferred to a new tube and purified by phenol-chloroform extraction (29). To precipitate the total RNA, a 1/10 volume of 3.0 M sodium acetate plus one volume of isopropanol was added. The RNA was treated twice with DNase according to the manufacturer's instructions (Invitrogen) and then purified using the RNeasy system (QIAGEN). RNA was quantified by measuring absorbance at 260 nm.
cDNA synthesis and labeling.
cDNA probes were indirectly labeled by reverse transcription in the presence of amino allyl dUTP (Amersham-Pharmacia). Six micrograms of total RNA and 2.5 µg random hexamers (Invitrogen) were mixed, and the volume was brought to 13.3 µl with diethyl pyrocarbonate-treated water. The RNA was denatured for 10 min at 65°C and cooled on ice for 5 min. Then, the following were added: 3 mM each of dATP, dCTP, and dGTP; 1.2 mM dTTP; 1.8 mM amino allyl dUTP (Ambion); 0.01 mM dithiothreitol; 40 U cloned RNase inhibitor (Ambion); and 6 µl 5x RT buffer plus 380 U Superscript II reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen). The samples were incubated at 42°C for 2 h. The RNA template was hydrolyzed by adding 10 µl 1.0 M NaOH plus 10 µl 0.5 M EDTA and incubated at 65°C for 30 min. The sample was neutralized with 25 µl of 1 M HEPES (pH 7.5), purified using a Microcon YM30 column (Eppendorf), and dried in a vacuum. The coupling of either Cy3 or Cy5 dye to the amino allyl dUTP in the cDNA was done according to instructions from Ambion. The labeled probe was purified using the QIAquick PCR purification system (QIAGEN) and concentrated using a Microcon YM30 column. To quantify the labeled probes, samples of labeled cDNA were aliquoted onto a glass plate and scanned using a Typhoon scanner (Amersham Pharmacia). The signal was quantified using ImageQuant 5.2 (Molecular Dynamics).
Microarray preparation.
An array of 70-mer oligonucleotides was designed based on the RHA1 genome sequence assembly available in April 2005. Sequences from 8,213 putative genes were used to design oligonucleotides. As negative controls, genes were selected from Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1, which have a G+C content similar to that of RHA1. The LB400 and PAO1 genes were initially selected by blasting them against the RHA1 genome sequence. Their suitability as negative controls was verified by hybridizing Cy-labeled genomic DNA of RHA1 to spotted arrays of LB400 and PA01 (kindly supplied by J. Park, Michigan State University, and R. E. W. Hancock, University of British Columbia, Canada, respectively). Six genes, i.e., two from PAO1 and four from LB400 were selected as negative controls. The oligonucleotides were designed and synthesized by Operon/QIAGEN and arrayed on Superamine slides at the Genome BC Microarray Platform (Vancouver, Canada) according to the manufacturer's protocol (ArrayIt). All the probes were printed in duplicate, side by side. The controls were randomly distributed on the array in three sets of duplicate spots.
Microarray hybridization and data analysis.
The microarray slides were prehybridized using 5x SSC (1x SSC is 0.15 M NaCl plus 0.015 M sodium citrate) containing 0.1% SDS and 0.2% bovine serum albumin for 45 min at 48°C and used immediately for hybridization in a GeneTac HybStation (Genomic Solution). The hybridization was carried out at 42°C for 18 h with mixing by using 120 µl per slide of SlideHyb#1 hybridization solution (Ambion). The posthybridization washing consisted of three cycles of 20-second incubations with each of the following solutions: 2x SSC plus 0.1% SDS (medium stringency) at 42°C, 0.1x SSC plus 0.05% SDS (high stringency) at 25°C, and 0.1x SSC (low stringency) at 25°C. After being washed, the slides were dried by centrifugation for 5 min at 350 x g at room temperature and scanned with a GenePix 4000B scanner (Axon Instruments). Nine hybridizations were conducted, one for each of the triplicate cultures grown on each of the three aromatic substrates. For each aromatic substrate, two triplicate cDNA samples were labeled with Cy5 and one was labeled with Cy3. Respectively, these were hybridized in competition with cDNA samples from the triplicate PYR control cultures, two labeled with Cy3 and one labeled with Cy5. Equal amounts of Cy3 and Cy5 were used in all hybridizations.
The spot intensities were quantified using Imagene 5.6 (BioDiscovery, Inc.). To correct for nonspecific (background) signal for each channel (each dye), the mean signal for 10% of the probes in each subgrid with the lowest intensity was subtracted from that for all probes in the corresponding subgrid. Using GeneSpring version 6.0 (Silicon Genetics), expression ratios were normalized using the LOWESS method. Average normalized expression ratios (treatment/control) were calculated for each gene and tested for significant variation between treatments (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P < 0.05). Treatments were further screened for difference from the control, which was defined as having an expression ratio of either >2.0 or <0.5. A heat map showing expression patterns for selected genes was generated using MeV 3.1 (The Institute for Genomic Research).
Quantitative PCR.
To validate the microarray data, transcripts from five genes from four different operons were quantified by real-time PCR analysis. TaqMan probes and primers (Table 1) were designed using the default parameters for the software Primer Express 2.0 (Applied Biosystems). As an internal standard, multiplex reactions additionally quantified the gene encoding DNA polymerase IV. This gene was selected because it showed high and constant expression levels on all substrates, including the PYR control. All reactions were performed using the following probe combination: 6FAM (5' reporter) for genes of interest and VIC (5' reporter) for the internal control. TAMRA (6-carboxytetramethylrhodamine) was used as a quencher for both probes in the same tube.
|
Sequence analyses.
Amino acid sequence alignments and distance matrices were calculated using CLUSTALX version 1.83 (35). Trees were calculated by applying the neighbor-joining method (26) to the distance matrix and were displayed using GeneDoc. The sequences for potential BphAa, BphB, and BphC homologues were searched for the corresponding PROSITE signatures (10). To facilitate the phylogenetic analyses of RHA1 pathway enzymes, reference enzymes of experimentally verified substrate preference were included in these analyses.
Accession numbers.
The RHA1 genome was submitted to NCBI (accession numbers NC8268, NC8269, NC8270, and NC8271). Additional data, including files for whole-genome visualization (in Artemis and GBrowse formats), are available at http://www.rhodococcus.ca/. Details of the microarray design, transcriptomic experimental design, and transcriptomic data have been deposited in the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) and are accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE5280.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
/ß-fold C-C bond hydrolases were identified, of which, based on phylogenetic analyses, six were predicted to possibly transform 2-hydroxypentadienoates originating from BPH or ETB. These six BphD homologues share five key active site residues and a minimum of 23% amino acid sequence identity. We identified 22 genes potentially encoding degradation of 2-hydroxy-2,4-pentadieneoate (HPD) to pyruvate plus acetyl-coenzyme A (CoA) in eight clusters of two or three genes. These genes include eight that potentially encode BphE-type hydratases, sharing a minimum of 26% amino acid sequence identity, some of which may alternately encode 4-oxalocrotonate decarboxylases; seven BphF-type aldolases, potentially able to transform 4-hydroxy-2-oxovalerate and sharing a minimum of 41% sequence identity; and seven BphG-type acetaldehyde dehydrogenases, sharing a minimum of 40% amino acid sequence identity. Importantly, each of the predicted enzymes for the first four steps of the pathway contained conserved amino acids known to be critical to catalytic function or structural stability.
Gene expression trends on different substrates.
The expression of 8,313 genes was measured during exponential growth of RHA1 on BPH, ETB, BEN, and the control substrate, PYR, as the sole organic substrates. The expression of 926 genes differed significantly on the three aromatic substrates. The patterns of gene expression were overwhelmingly similar on BPH and ETB, with a large number of genes upregulated relative to their regulation on the PYR control (Fig. 2). These genes are distributed among all the genomic elements, but there are some obvious regions with a high density of upregulated genes on pRHL1 and pRHL2 that contain the bph and etb catabolic genes.
|
BPH-ETB transcriptome.
A common set of 320 genes was upregulated on both BPH and ETB. Upregulated genes in the BPH-ETB transcriptome were in diverse functional categories (see Table S1 in the supplemental material) based on clusters of orthologous groups of proteins (34). The majority of these genes have unknown functions. The next-largest groups are distributed throughout the clusters of orthologous groups of proteins within the general group of metabolism, including the genes predicted to specify BPH and ETB degradation (see below) plus metabolic genes whose roles are not apparent. These include ro00423, ro02511, and ro02355 and/or ro04667 (the latter two are not distinguished by probes), which encode P450 monooxygenases. The metabolism genes also include many that may actually be involved in transport or environmental sensing. Another large group of genes in the BPH-ETB transcriptome is distributed throughout the general group of information storage and processing, including many genes encoding transcriptional regulators.
BPH pathway genes.
The BPH-ETB transcriptome includes a common suite of catabolic genes, similarly expressed on both substrates, encoding multiple isozymes for each step in the BPH pathway (Fig. 1 and Table 2). We did not observe the alternative possibility, differential regulation of these genes on the two substrates. The levels of expression (based on probe signal intensities) appear to be very high for many of the BPH pathway genes. Further, most of the BPH pathway genes were strongly downregulated on BEN relative to their regulation on the PYR control.
|
|
Of the eight bphD homologues encoding
/ß-fold serine hydrolases (Fig. 1), the previously identified bphD1 was highly upregulated during growth of cells on BPH and ETB (Table 2). The etbD1 and etbD2 genes are 97% identical, so their expression could not be distinguished by a microarray probe. The probe representing both genes indicated upregulation on BPH and ETB. Given its location in the etbAa2Ab2AcD2 operon, etbD2 was presumably upregulated, but it is unclear whether etbD1 was also upregulated. The remaining five bphD homologues were not upregulated on BPH or ETB.
Of the genes potentially encoding the three steps of HPD degradation (Fig. 1), the bphE2F2 genes in the etbAa1Ab1C-bphD1E2F2 operon (Fig. 3) were highly upregulated, and those in the bphF3G3E3 cluster on pRHL1 were also upregulated (4- to 16-fold) on BPH and ETB (Table 2). The bphE1F1G1 cluster localized on plasmid pRHL1 was not upregulated on any of the tested substrates. However, based on the signal intensity of the three corresponding probes on all substrates, including PYR, the bphE1F1 genes appeared to be constitutively expressed at a relatively high level. Finally, an additional cluster on pRHL2, bphE4G4F4, was partially upregulated on the three substrates and has several unusual features. The ancestral bphG4 gene is interrupted by two possible transposases (ro10114 and ro10115), which split that gene into two open reading frames, ro10113 and bphG4. The latter gene appears to encode an intact, potentially functional acylating acetaldehyde dehydrogenase domain and was upregulated (22- to 25-fold) on BPH and ETB. By contrast, bphE4 and bphF4 appeared to be constitutively expressed at high levels on all substrates. The remaining 11 bphEFG homologues, in four clusters, were not upregulated on any substrate tested.
Quantitative PCR analyses.
Quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR was used as an alternative to measure the expression levels of genes. This was done to confirm the accuracy of the microarray analyses, to check microarray results that appeared doubtful in light of inconsistent results within putative operons, and to quantify upregulation of genes whose signals appeared to be beyond the dynamic range of the microarray assay.
The expression of three genes, bphAa, etbC, and etbAc, representing the highly expressed operons bphAaAbAcAdC1, etbAa1Ab1C-bphD1E2F2, and etbAa2Ab2AcD2, was analyzed by Q-PCR (Table 3). These genes were selected because they are unique in the genome and their expression levels appeared similar to those of the other genes in their respective operons (Fig. 3). When the expression ratios (treatment/control) of the three genes were compared using the two methods, the difference between methods was consistently less than fivefold, which is considered to indicate good agreement between the methods (39). Further, the trends for the expression of the three genes on the different substrates measured by the two methods agreed very well. This agreement confirms the accuracy of the microarray analyses. The results also confirm that despite the microarray results for etbC not meeting the ANOVA criterion for statistically different expression, that gene was clearly upregulated on BPH and ETB.
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Identification of BEN pathway genes.
Our transcriptomic analysis confirmed the roles of the ben and cat genes and their enzyme products in the degradation of BEN (Table 2). The pcaLIJF genes are also predicted to be necessary for complete BEN degradation to acetyl-CoA plus succinyl-CoA. Our results suggest that these genes may be somewhat upregulated on BEN and BPH above a moderate basal level of expression on PYR, but the data do not meet our criteria for significant upregulation. All of the corresponding proteins were previously found to be upregulated on BEN relative to their regulation on PYR by proteomic analysis (25). The available evidence is consistent with the predicted involvement of the pca genes in BEN and BPH degradation. The BEN pathway was regulated independently of the BPH pathway and was not part of the common BPH-ETB transcriptome. The extent of BEN gene upregulation appears to be much greater during growth on BEN than on BPH (Table 3). The BEN pathway could be induced during BPH degradation by the accumulation of BEN or one of its degradation intermediates. The expression pattern of benR is consistent with a role as a positive regulator.
Identification of BPH pathway genes.
Previous reports of BPH pathway gene regulation in RHA1 are fragmentary, and some are qualitative. Our transcriptomic analyses showed that multiple homologous genes encoding every step of the BPH pathway (Fig. 1) are simultaneously induced by BPH or ETB (Fig. 2 and 3 and Table 2). We confirmed the expression and probable role of a number of genes in the degradation of these two substrates, including genes encoding three biphenyl dioxygenase systems (bphAaAbAcAd, etbAa1Ab1Ad, and etbAa2Ab2Ac), two dihydrodiol dehydrogenases (bphB1 and bphB2), two dihydroxybiphenyl dioxygenases (bphC1 and etbC), two hydrolases (bphD and etbD2), and two HPD pathway enzymes (bphE2 and bphF2). The results confirmed our prediction that no additional ring-hydroxylating dioxygenase systems are involved in BPH or ETB degradation.
In contrast to previous findings (28), we found no evidence for induction of the bphE1F1G1 operon on BPH or ETB. Rather, probe signal intensity suggested that bphE1F1 genes were constitutively expressed at relatively high levels on all substrates (Table 2). The difference between results could be due to the use of a rich substrate, LB medium, for the control in the previous study versus mineral medium plus pyruvate in ours. Knockout analysis indicates that bphE1F1G1 genes are involved in biodegradation of biphenyl and alkyl benzenes (28), but these genes may also be involved in the biodegradation of additional compounds which yield HPD and its derivatives as intermediates, such as catechol and 3-(2-hydroxyphenyl) propionic acid.
The roles of four genes in the BPH pathway are questionable. The expression level of etbD1 is impossible to distinguish from that of the very similar etbD2, and the genomic context of etbD1 does not provide further insight, as it does for etbD2. The ro04541 gene was previously reported to be induced during growth on BPH or ETB and was designated bphC5 (27). Our results suggested that ro04541 is much less upregulated and expressed at much lower levels than were other confirmed BPH pathway genes (Table 2). Because of the similarity of ro04541 to other bphC homologues, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that its probe cross-hybridized (despite the probe meeting design criteria for specificity). The extreme expression levels of bphC1 and etbC greatly increase the potential for detectable cross-hybridization. Further, ro04541 clearly appears to be cotranscribed with the gene immediately downstream, ro04540, a bphD homologue, which overlaps with ro04540 by one nucleotide. Since ro04540 was not upregulated on BPH or ETB, the apparent upregulation of ro04541 in both studies was likely due to cross-hybridization, and it appears doubtful that this gene has a role in BPH or ETB degradation. Finally, ro04905 and ro05803 appeared to be constitutively expressed at high levels. Without evidence regarding the expression and specificity of the encoded extradiol dioxygenases, it is impossible to know whether ro04905 or ro05803 contributes to BPH or ETB degradation.
We identified several novel genes in the BPH-ETB transcriptome, which are likely involved in the degradation of those compounds. These include three HPD pathway genes in an apparent operon, bphF3G3E3 (Fig. 2). We identified an additional HPD operon, bphE4G4F4, which appears to have been disrupted by a transposon. The bphG4 gene is truncated but encodes a complete catalytic domain and is upregulated on BPH and ETB, so it may contribute to their biodegradation. The bphE4 and bphF4 genes were not upregulated on BPH or ETB but appear to be expressed constitutively at high levels (Table 2), particularly the latter gene, suggesting that one or both genes may contribute to BPH and ETB biodegradation. Two additional HPD pathway genes, ro04533 and ro03867, had high signal intensities on all substrates. However, both of these genes are clustered in apparent operons with other HPD pathway genes that did not have high signal intensities, suggesting that the former high signal intensities may have been due to cross-hybridization. Further evidence of protein expression and enzyme activity are required to confirm the roles of these novel genes.
We ruled out the involvement of 26 genes potentially encoding BPH pathway enzymes, because these genes were not upregulated or, on the basis of probe signal intensity, highly expressed on BPH or ETB (Table 2). These genes include eight bphC homologues, five bphD homologues, and nine HPD pathway gene homologues (Fig. 1).
High expression levels.
When induced, genes for the catabolism of BPH, ETB, and BEN by RHA1 appear to be very highly upregulated and expressed at extremely high levels (Table 2). These genes generally had the highest signal intensities on the microarray, except for rRNA genes. Q-PCR assays, with a dynamic range much greater than that of microarray analysis (13), were necessary to quantify the upregulation of these genes. These assays indicated >120-fold increases in the expression of the bph genes and a 10,000-fold increase in the expression of the ben genes (Table 3). We estimate that when induced, transcripts from these individual genes range from 6.75 pg to 1.32 ng per µg of total RNA. There are few comparable results published. In Burkholderia xenovorans LB400, a
1,000-fold increase in the expression of bph genes was observed during growth on BPH compared to that observed during growth on BEN (3). Another study reported a
400-fold increase in the expression of tfd genes responsible for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate degradation following induction with that compound (17). Thus, such high levels of upregulation and of expression may be typical for catabolic genes for such aromatic substrates.
A single catabolic system for BPH and alkyl benzenes.
Importantly, expression levels for the various bph homologues were very similar on both BPH and ETB. For each gene, microarray hybridization signal intensities were similar on the two substrates (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The Q-PCR assay further confirmed the similar expression levels of bphAa, etbC, and etbAc on the two substrates (Table 3). With a previous prototype microarray, we found very similar expression levels for many of the catabolic genes on BPH and ETB as well as isopropyl benzene, indicating that the latter compound also induces and is degraded by the same suite of enzymes. Thus, RHA1 does not differentially express particular enzymes that are most efficient for the degradation of these individual substrates. Rather, there appears to be a common BPH-alkyl benzene catabolic system, including one suite of catabolic enzymes similarly employed for a broad group of structurally similar substrates. In part, this uniform response may reflect the requirement of genes from at least two gene clusters to encode a complete BPH pathway, but this general response could additionally be the result of adaptation to mixtures of substrates that typically occur in natural environments. Alternatively, this general response might reflect a lack of optimization of the regulation of genes likely obtained via horizontal transfer.
Multiple isozymes with different catalytic characteristics can be advantageous to bacteria in the catabolism of mixtures of related compounds (1). Further, for bioremediation applications, the spectrum of PCBs degraded by a microorganism is directly related to the specificity of the biphenyl dioxygenase (21), and it was also suggested that the presence of multiple bphC homologues with different activities can avoid the accumulation of inhibitory metabolites produced during the biodegradation of aromatic compounds, including PCBs (9). Clearly, the simultaneous expression of a multiplicity of BPH pathway isozymes in RHA1, as shown in this study, may contribute to its exceptional ability to degrade PCBs. The simultaneous expression of three biphenyl dioxygenases also creates the intriguing possibility that hybrid enzyme systems (combinations of subunits encoded in different gene clusters) might assemble, yielding additional systems with distinct catalytic properties (5, 6, 18). Despite the above-described potential benefits of expressing multiple dioxygenase systems, it is also known that ring-hydroxylating and extradiol dioxygenases can be inactivated during the transformation of suboptimal substrates (11, 36). Therefore, to evaluate the effects of expressing multiple dioxygenase systems, it will be important to determine the substrate specificities of those enzymes.
BPH-ETB transcriptome.
A striking trend in the transcriptomic data was the large set of genes induced by both BPH and ETB versus the much smaller group of genes induced by BEN (Fig. 2). Since nearly half of the 320 genes upregulated on both BPH and ETB have unknown functions, it is difficult to deduce the physiological role of this large suite of genes, but that role clearly extends beyond the catabolism of the growth substrates. One possibility is that the hydrophobicity of biphenyl and alkyl benzenes causes a solvent stress response, which could account for the observed induction of genes of many functional categories located throughout the genome (Fig. 2; also see Table S1 in the supplemental material). The induction on BPH and ETB of 26 putative regulatory protein genes and 11 putative transposase genes is consistent with a stress response. However, there is very little similarity between the BPH-ETB transcriptome and transcriptomes observed during osmotic, desiccation, and starvation stresses (unpublished data). Also, beyond the BPH-ETB transcriptomes of similarly regulated genes, there are differences in gene expression on the two substrates. In particular, ETB stands out as causing significant upregulation of 75 more genes than BPH. This difference may explain why RHA1 was found to more extensively degrade PCBs when growing on ETB than when growing on BPH (4).
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This work was supported by a grant from Genome Canada/ Genome BC.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://aem.asm.org/. ![]()
Present address: Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Campinas, Centro de Ciencias da VidaFaculdade de Ciencias Biologicas, Av. John Boyd Dunlop, s/n, Campinas-São PauloCEP 13.059-900, Brazil. ![]()
Present address: Department of Applied Biotechnology, Graduate School of Agriculture and Life Science, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan. ![]()
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| J. Bacteriol. | Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. | Eukaryot. Cell | All ASM Journals |
|---|