4.6 Article

Pyrene biodegradation and proteomic analysis in Achromobacter xylosoxidans, PY4 strain

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2018.03.014

关键词

Biodegradation; Bioremediation; pyrene; Achromobacter xylosoxidans; Proteomics; Biotransformation; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

资金

  1. King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) through the Science and Technology Unit at King Fand University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), through the National Science, Technology and Innovation Plan [13-ENV1628-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are environmental pollutants from incomplete combustion and petroleum products. As the molecular weight increases, PAHs become more recalcitrant to biodegradation. A bacterial strain capable of metabolizing the four fused aromatic ring PAH pyrene was isolated and characterized. The analysis of 16S rRNA gene revealed that it belongs to Achromobacter xylosoxidans species. A. xylosoxidans PY4 can utilize pyrene as the sole source of carbon. PY4 has a doubling time (dt) of less than 1 day when it grows in the presence of 1-5 mg l(-1) pyrene, a dt range similar to that of the most efficient pyrene biodegrading bacteria described so far. The optimal pyrene degradation conditions are at pH 7-9, 37-40 degrees C, and 0-2.5% NaCl. PY4 also utilizes salicylic acid, catechol, naphthalene, anthracene and phenanthrene. PY4 degrades more than 50% of 100 mgl(-1) of pyrene, within the first 15 days, at a rate of 0.069 day(-1), R-2 = 0.99. The metabolites include monohydroxypyrene, 1-methoxy1-2-H-benzo[h]chromene-2-carboxylic acid, 9,10-phenanthrenequinone, 1-methoxyl-trans-2'-carboxybenzalpyruvate, and dibutyl-phthalate. Up-expressed proteins in response to pyrene are involved in cell homeostasis, genetic information synthesis and storage, and chemical stress. Among these proteins are 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase and homogentisate 1,2-dioxygenase, involved in the lower pyrene degradation pathway.

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