4.5 Article

Dietary pectic glycans are degraded by coordinated enzyme pathways in human colonic Bacteroides

期刊

NATURE MICROBIOLOGY
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 210-219

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41564-017-0079-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [322820]
  2. Wellcome Trust [WT097907MA]
  3. European Union Seventh Framework Initial Training Network Programme [263916]
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Research Council project 'Ricefuel' [BB/K020358/1]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [322820] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The major nutrients available to human colonic Bacteroides species are glycans, exemplified by pectins, a network of covalently linked plant cell wall polysaccharides containing galacturonic acid (GalA). Metabolism of complex carbohydrates by the Bacteroides genus is orchestrated by polysaccharide utilization loci (PULs). In Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, a human colonic bacterium, the PULs activated by different pectin domains have been identified; however, the mechanism by which these loci contribute to the degradation of these GalA-containing polysaccharides is poorly understood. Here we show that each PUL orchestrates the metabolism of specific pectin molecules, recruiting enzymes from two previously unknown glycoside hydrolase families. The apparatus that depolymerizes the backbone of rhamnogalacturonan-I is particularly complex. This system contains several glycoside hydrolases that trim the remnants of other pectin domains attached to rhamnogalacturonan-I, and nine enzymes that contribute to the degradation of the backbone that makes up a rhamnose-GalA repeating unit. The catalytic properties of the pectin-degrading enzymes are optimized to protect the glycan cues that activate the specific PULs ensuring a continuous supply of inducing molecules throughout growth. The contribution of Bacteroides spp. to metabolism of the pectic network is illustrated by cross-feeding between organisms.

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

4.5
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