4.8 Article

Variable genetic architectures produce virtually identical molecules in bacterial symbionts of fungus-growing ants

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1515348112

关键词

symbiosis; chemical ecology; horizontal gene transfer; biosynthetic gene clusters; natural products

资金

  1. Alberta Innovates Health Solutions Fellowship
  2. Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship
  3. Harvard Medical School-Merck Fellowship
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [F32 GM108415]
  5. NIH [R01 GM086258, U19 AI09673]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Small molecules produced by Actinobacteria have played a prominent role in both drug discovery and organic chemistry. As part of a larger study of the actinobacterial symbionts of fungus-growing ants, we discovered a small family of three previously unreported piperazic acid-containing cyclic depsipeptides, gerumycins A-C. The gerumycins are slightly smaller versions of dentigerumycin, a cyclic depsipeptide that selectively inhibits a common fungal pathogen, Escovopsis. We had previously identified this molecule from a Pseudonocardia associated with Apterostigma dentigerum, and now we report the molecule from an associate of the more highly derived ant Trachy-myrmex cornetzi. The three previously unidentified compounds, gerumycins A-C, have essentially identical structures and were produced by two different symbiotic Pseudonocardia spp. from ants in the genus Apterostigma found in both Panama and Costa Rica. To understand the similarities and differences in the biosynthetic pathways that produced these closely related molecules, the genomes of the three producing Pseudonocardia were sequenced and the biosynthetic gene clusters identified. This analysis revealed that dramatically different biosynthetic architectures, including genomic islands, a plasmid, and the use of spatially separated genetic loci, can lead to molecules with virtually identical core structures. A plausible evolutionary model that unifies these disparate architectures is presented.

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

4.8
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