4.6 Article

Functional metagenomic selection of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase from uncultivated bacteria

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 1187-1199

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.13138

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM095742]
  2. National Institutes of Health under the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences [F32GM109547]
  3. Department of Energy [DE-FC02-02ER63421]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RubisCO) is a critical yet severely inefficient enzyme that catalyses the fixation of virtually all of the carbon found on Earth. Here, we report a functional metagenomic selection that recovers physiologically active RubisCO molecules directly from uncultivated and largely unknown members of natural microbial communities. Selection is based on CO2-dependent growth in a host strain capable of expressing environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), precluding the need for pure cultures or screening of recombinant clones for enzymatic activity. Seventeen functional RubisCO-encoded sequences were selected using DNA extracted from soil and river autotrophic enrichments, a photosynthetic biofilm and a subsurface groundwater aquifer. Notably, three related form II RubisCOs were recovered which share high sequence similarity with metagenomic scaffolds from uncultivated members of the Gallionellaceae family. One of the Gallionellaceae RubisCOs was purified and shown to possess CO2/O-2 specificity typical of form II enzymes. X-ray crystallography determined that this enzyme is a hexamer, only the second form II multimer ever solved and the first RubisCO structure obtained from an uncultivated bacterium. Functional metagenomic selection leverages natural biological diversity and billions of years of evolution inherent in environmental communities, providing a new window into the discovery of CO2-fixing enzymes not previously characterized.

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

4.6
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