4.8 Article

Isotope Fractionation Pinpoints Membrane Permeability as a Barrier to Atrazine Biodegradation in Gram-negative Polaromonas sp Nea-C

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 52, 期 7, 页码 4137-4144

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06599

关键词

-

资金

  1. ERC consolidator grant (MicroDegrade) - European Research Council [616861]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biodegradation of persistent pesticides like atrazine often stalls at low concentrations in the environment. While mass transfer does not limit atrazine degradation by the Gram-positive Arthrobacter aurescens TC1 at high concentrations (>1 mg/L), evidence of bioavailability limitations is emerging at trace concentrations (<0.1 mg/L). To assess the bioavailability constraints on biodegradation, the roles of cell wall physiology and transporters remain imperfectly understood. Here, compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) demonstrates that cell wall physiology (i.e., the difference between Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria) imposes mass transfer limitations in atrazine biodegradation even at high concentrations. Atrazine biodegradation by Gram-negative Polaromonas sp. Nea-C caused significantly less isotope fractionation (epsilon(C) = 3.5 parts per thousand) than expected for hydrolysis by the enzyme TrzN (epsilon(C) = -5.0 parts per thousand) and observed in Gram-positive Arthrobacter aurescens TC1 (epsilon(C) = -5.4 parts per thousand). Isotope fractionation was recovered in cell-free extracts (epsilon(C) = -5.3 parts per thousand) where no cell envelope restricted pollutant uptake. When active transport was inhibited with cyanide, atrazine degradation rates remained constant demonstrating that atrazine mass transfer across the cell envelope does not depend on active transport but is a consequence of passive cell wall permeation. Taken together, our results identify the cell envelope of the Gram-negative bacterium Polaromonas sp. Nea-C as a relevant barrier for atrazine biodegradation.

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

4.8
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