4.4 Article

Genomic analysis of carbon source metabolism of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1:: Predictions versus experiments

Journal

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
Volume 188, Issue 13, Pages 4601-4609

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.01787-05

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genomic sequences have been used to find the genetic foundation for carbon source metabolism in Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Annotated S. oneidensis MR-1 gene products were examined for their sequence similarity to enzymes participating in pathways for utilization of carbon and energy as described in the BioCyc database (http://www.biocyc.org/) or in the primary literature. A picture emerges that relegates five- and six-carbon sugars to minor roles as carbon sources, whereas multiple pathways for utilization of up to three-carbon carbohydrates seem to be present. Capacity to utilize amino acids for carbon and energy is also present. A few contradictions emerged in which enzymes appear to be present by annotations but are not active in the cell according to physiological experiments. Annotations are based on close sequence similarity and will not reveal inactivity due to deleterious mutations or due to lack of coordination of regulation and transport. Genes for a few enzymes known by experiment to be active are not found in the genome. This may be due to extensive divergence after duplication or convergence of function in separate lines in evolution rendering activities undetectable by sequence similarity. To minimize false predictions from protein sequences, we have been conservative in predicting pathways. We did not predict any pathway when, although a partial pathway was seen it was composed largely of enzymes already accounted for in any other complete pathway. This is an example of how a biochemically oriented sequence analysis can generate questions and direct further experimental investigation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available