4.8 Article

Sulfhydryl Binding Sites within Bacterial Extracellular Polymeric Substances

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 11, Pages 5498-5505

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00347

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Energy, Subsurface Biogeochemistry Research Program grant
  2. NSF [EAR-1424950]
  3. Bayer Predoctoral Fellowship through the Center for Environmental Science and Technology (CEST) at University of Notre Dame
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences [1424950] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the concentration of sulfhydryl sites on bacterial biomass samples with and without extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) was measured in order to determine the distribution of sulfhydryl sites on bacteria. Three different approaches were employed for EPS removal from Pseudomonas putida, and the measured sulfhydryl concentrations on bacterial EPS molecules are independent of the EPS removal protocols used. Prior to EPS removal, the measured sulfhydryl sites within P. putida samples was 34.9 +/- 9.5 mu mol/g, and no sulfhydryl sites were detected after EPS removal, indicating that virtually all of the sulfhydryl sites are located on the EPS molecules produced by P. putida. In contrast, the sulfhydryl sites within the S. oneidensis samples increased from 32.6 +/- 3.6 mu mol/g to 51.9 +/- 7.2 mu mol/g after EPS removal, indicating that the EPS produced by S. oneidensis contained fewer sulfhydryl sites than those present on the untreated cells. This study suggests that the sulfhydryl concentrations on EPS molecules may vary significantly from one bacterial species to another, thus it is crucial to quantify the concentration of sulfhydryl sites on EPS molecules of other bacterial species in order to determine the effect of bacterial EPS on metal cycling in the environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available