4.7 Article

Global Proteomics Reveal an Atypical Strategy for Carbon/Nitrogen Assimilation by a Cyanobacterium Under Diverse Environmental Perturbations

期刊

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M110.000109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Direct For Biological Sciences
  2. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [0745611] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cyanobacteria, the only prokaryotes capable of oxygenic photosynthesis, are present in diverse ecological niches and play crucial roles in global carbon and nitrogen cycles. To proliferate in nature, cyanobacteria utilize a host of stress responses to accommodate periodic changes in environmental conditions. A detailed knowledge of the composition of, as well as the dynamic changes in, the proteome is necessary to gain fundamental insights into such stress responses. Toward this goal, we have performed a large-scale proteomic analysis of the widely studied model cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 under 33 different environmental conditions. The resulting high-quality dataset consists of 22,318 unique peptides corresponding to 1955 proteins, a coverage of 53% of the predicted proteome. Quantitative determination of protein abundances has led to the identification of 1198 differentially regulated proteins. Notably, our analysis revealed that a common stress response under various environmental perturbations, irrespective of amplitude and duration, is the activation of atypical pathways for the acquisition of carbon and nitrogen from urea and arginine. In particular, arginine is catabolized via putrescine to produce succinate and glutamate, sources of carbon and nitrogen, respectively. This study provides the most comprehensive functional and quantitative analysis of the Synechocystis proteome to date, and shows that a significant stress response of cyanobacteria involves an uncommon mode of acquisition of carbon and nitrogen.

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

4.7
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