4.7 Article

Cell surface acid-base properties of Escherichia coli and Bacillus brevis and variation as a function of growth phase, nitrogen source and C:N ratio

Journal

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 112-119

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2006.05.001

Keywords

acid-base properties; potentiomentric titration; isoelectric point; C : N ratio; nitrogen source

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Potentiometric titration has been conducted to systematically examine the acid-base properties of the cell surfaces of Escherichia coli K-12 and Bacillus brevis as a function of growth phase, nitrogen source (ammonium or nitrate), and carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio of the growth substrate. The two bacterial species revealed four distinct proton binding sites, with pK(a) values in the range of 3.08-4.05 (pK(1)), 4.62-5.57 (pK(2)), 6.47-7.30 (pK(3)), and 9.68-10.89 (pK(4)) corresponding to phosphoric/carboxylic, carboxylic, phosphoric, and hydroxyl/amine groups, respectively. Two general observations in the data are that for B. brevis the first site concentration (N-1), corresponding to phosphoric/carboxylic groups (pK(1)), varied as a function of nitrogen source, while for E. coli the fourth site concentration (N-4), corresponding to hydroxyl/amine groups (pK(4)), varied as a function of C:N ratio. Correspondingly, it was found that N-1 was the highest of the four site concentrations for B. brevis and N-4 was the highest for E. coli. The concentrations of the remaining sites showed little variation. Finally, comparison between the titration data and a number of cell surface compositional studies in the literature indicates one distinct difference between the two bacteria is that pK(4) of the Gram-negative E. coli can be attributed to hydroxyl groups while that of the Gram-positive B. brevis can be attributed to amine groups. (C) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available