4.4 Article

Amino Acid Racemization in Pseudomonas putida KT2440

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 195, 期 22, 页码 5016-5024

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.00761-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2011-67020-30195]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

D-Amino acids have been shown to play an increasingly diverse role in bacterial physiology, yet much remains to be learned about their synthesis and catabolism. Here we used the model soil- and rhizosphere-dwelling organism Pseudomonas putida KT2440 to elaborate on the genomics and enzymology of D-amino acid metabolism. P. putida KT2440 catabolized the D-stereoisomers of lysine, phenylalanine, arginine, alanine, and hydroxyproline as the sole carbon and nitrogen sources. With the exception of phenylalanine, each of these amino acids was racemized by P. putida KT2440 enzymes. Three amino acid racemases were identified from a genomic screen, and the enzymes were further characterized in vitro. The putative biosynthetic alanine racemase Alr showed broad substrate specificity, exhibiting measurable racemase activity with 9 of the 19 chiral amino acids. Among these amino acids, activity was the highest with lysine, and the k(cat)/K-m values with L- and D-lysine were 3 orders of magnitude greater than the k(cat)/K-m values with L- and D-alanine. Conversely, the putative catabolic alanine racemase DadX showed narrow substrate specificity, clearly preferring only the alanine stereoisomers as the substrates. However, DadX did show 6- and 9-fold higher k(cat)/K-m values than Alr with L- and D-alanine, respectively. The annotated proline racemase ProR of P. putida KT2440 showed negligible activity with either stereoisomer of the 19 chiral amino acids but exhibited strong epimerization activity with hydroxyproline as the substrate. Comparative genomic analysis revealed differences among pseudomonads with respect to alanine racemase genes that may point to different roles for these genes among closely related species.

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