4.7 Article

Biodegradation of high-molecular weight PAHs by Rhodococcus wratislaviensis strain 9: Overexpression of amidohydrolase induced by pyrene and BaP

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 651, 期 -, 页码 813-821

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.192

关键词

Rhodococcus wratislaviensis strain 9; PAHs biodegradation; Pyrene; BaP; Amidohydrolase overexpresssion

资金

  1. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A Gram-positive bacterium, Rhodococcus wratislaviensis strain 9, completely degraded 280 mu M of phenanthrene, 40% of 50 mu M pyrene or 28% of 40 mu M benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), each supplemented in M9 medium, within 7 days. PCR screening with gene-specific primers indicated that the strain 9 harbors genes which code for 2,3-dihydroxybiphenyl 1,2-dioxygenase (bphC), 4-nitrophenol 2-monooxygenase component B (npcB) as well as oxygenase component (nphA1), 4-hydroxybenzoate 3-monooxygenase (phbH), extradiol dioxygenase (edo), and naphthalene dioxygenase (ndo), all of which are largely implicated in biodegradation of several aromatic hydrocarbons. An orthogonal design experiment revealed that BaP biodegradation was greatly enhanced by surfactants such as Tween 80, Triton X-100 and linoleic acid, suggesting that bioavailability is the major limiting factor in bacterial metabolism of BaP. Both pyrene and BaP induced the overexpression of amidohydrolase, a metallo-dependent hydrolase, possibly involved in their biodegradation by strain 9. The up-regulation of amidohydrolase gene induced by BaP, in particular, was also confirmed by semi-quantitative RT-PCR. Catechol 2,3-dioxygenase and the large subunit of ndo, but not amidohydrolase, accumulated when the strain 9 was grown on phenanthrene. To our knowledge, this is the first report on overexpression of amidohydrolase and its possible implication in bacterial degradation of high-molecular weight PAHs. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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