4.7 Review

The number and type of oxygen-utilizing enzymes indicates aerobic vs. anaerobic phenotype

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 84-92

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2019.03.031

关键词

-

资金

  1. Israel Science Foundation [980/14]
  2. Sasson and Marjorie Peress Philanthropic Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxygen is a major metabolic driving force that enabled the expansion of metabolic networks including new metabolites and new enzymes. It had a dramatic impact on the primary electron transport chain where it serves as terminal electron acceptor, but oxygen is also used by many enzymes as electron acceptor for a variety of reactions. The organismal oxygen phenotype, aerobic vs. anaerobic, should be manifested in its O-2-utilizing enzymes. Traditionally, enzymes involved in primary oxygen metabolism such as cytochrome c, and reactive oxygen species (ROS)-neutralizing enzymes (e.g. catalase), were used as identifiers of oxygen phenotype. However, these enzymes are often found in strict anaerobes. We aimed to identify the O-2-utilizing enzymes that may distinguish between aerobes and anaerobes. To this end, we annotated the O-2-utilizing enzymes across the prokaryotic tree of life. We recovered over 700 enzymes and mapped their presence/absence in 272 representative genomes. As seen before, enzymes mediating primary oxygen metabolism, and ROS neutralizing enzymes, could be found in both aerobes and anaerobes. However, there exists a subset of enzymes, primarily oxidases that catabolyze various substrates, including amino acids and xenobiotics, that are preferentially enriched in aerobes. Overall it appears that the total number of oxygen-utilizing enzymes, and the presence of enzymes involved in 'peripheral', secondary oxygen metabolism, can reliably distinguish aerobes from anaerobes based solely on genome sequences. These criteria can also indicate the oxygen phenotype in metagenomic samples.

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