4.4 Article

Pyruvate Kinase-Deficient Escherichia coli Exhibits Increased Plasmid Copy Number and Cyclic AMP Levels

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 191, 期 9, 页码 3041-3049

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.01422-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [BES-0224603, BES-0118961]
  2. NIH [T32GM65100-01A1]
  3. Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology Alliance (PITA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previously established consequences of abolishing pyruvate kinase (Pyk) activity in Escherichia coli during aerobic growth on glucose include reduced acetate production, elevated hexose monophosphate (HMP) pathway flux, elevated phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (Ppc) flux, and an increased ratio of phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) to pyruvate. These traits inspired two hypotheses. First, the mutant (PB25) may maintain more plasmid than the wild type (JM101) by combining traits reported to facilitate plasmid DNA synthesis (i.e., decreased Pyk flux and increased HMP pathway and Ppc fluxes). Second, PB25 likely possesses a higher level of cyclic AMP (cAMP) than JM101. This is based on reports that connect elevated PEP/pyruvate ratios to phosphotransferase system signaling and adenylate cyclase activation. To test the first hypothesis, the strains were transformed with a pUC-based, high-copy-number plasmid (pGFPuv), and copy numbers were measured. PB25 exhibited a fourfold-higher copy number than JM101 when grown at 37 degrees C. At 42 degrees C, its plasmid content was ninefold higher than JM101 at 37 degrees C. To test the second hypothesis, cAMP was measured, and the results confirmed it to be higher in PB25 than JM101. This elevation was not enough to elicit a strong regulatory effect, however, as indicated by the comparative expression of the pGFPuv-based reporter gene, gfpuv, under the control of the cAMP-responsive lac promoter. The elevated cAMP in PB25 suggests that Pyk may participate in glucose catabolite repression by serving among all of the factors that tighten gene expression.

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

4.4
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