4.6 Article

Genome analysis to decipher syntrophy in the bacterial consortium 'SCP' for azo dye degradation

期刊

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-021-02236-9

关键词

Dye degradation; Consortium; Azo-reductase; Genomics; Decolorization

资金

  1. University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study elucidated the role and mechanism of each member in the bacterial consortium SCP for azo dye degradation through genomic analysis, identifying glycerol utilization and azoreductase genes in APG2 and APG4. In addition to these, other cellular functions associated with dye degradation were also annotated.
Background A bacterial consortium SCP comprising three bacterial members, viz. Stenotrophomonas acidaminiphila APG1, Pseudomonas stutzeri APG2 and Cellulomonas sp. APG4 was developed for degradation of the mono-azo dye, Reactive Blue 28. The genomic analysis of each member of the SCP consortium was done to elucidate the catabolic potential and role of the individual organism in dye degradation. Results The genes for glycerol utilization were detected in the genomes of APG2 and APG4, which corroborated with their ability to grow on a minimal medium containing glycerol as the sole co-substrate. The genes for azoreductase were identified in the genomes of APG2 and APG4, while no such trait could be determined in APG1. In addition to co-substrate oxidation and dye reduction, several other cellular functions like chemotaxis, signal transduction, stress-tolerance, repair mechanisms, aromatic degradation, and copper tolerance associated with dye degradation were also annotated. A model for azo dye degradation is postulated, representing the predominant role of APG4 and APG2 in dye metabolism while suggesting an accessory role of APG1. Conclusions This exploratory study is the first-ever attempt to divulge the genetic basis of azo-dye co-metabolism by cross-genome comparisons and can be harnessed as an example for demonstrating microbial syntrophy.

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