4.4 Article

Role of dipicolinic acid in resistance and stability of spores of Bacillus subtilis with or without DNA-protective α/β-type small acid-soluble proteins

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 188, 期 11, 页码 3740-3747

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.00212-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dipicolinic acid (DPA) comprises similar to 10% of the dry weight of spores of Bacillus species. Although DPA has long been implicated in spore resistance to wet heat and spore stability, definitive evidence on the role of this abundant molecule in spore properties has generally been lacking. Bacillus subtilis strain FB122 (sleB spoVF) produced very stable spores that lacked DPA, and sporulation of this strain with DPA yielded spores with nearly normal DPA levels. DPA-replete and DPA-less FB122 spores had similar levels of the DNA protective alpha/beta-type small acid-soluble spore proteins (SASP), but the DPA-less spores lacked SASP-gamma. The DPA-less FB122 spores exhibited similar UV resistance to the DPA-replete spores but had lower resistance to wet heat, dry heat, hydrogen peroxide, and desiccation. Neither wet heat nor hydrogen peroxide killed the DPA-less spores by DNA damage, but desiccation did. The inability to synthesize both DPA and most alpha/beta-type SASP in strain PS3664 (sspA sspB sleB spoVF) resulted in spores that lost viability during sporulation, at least in part due to DNA damage. DPA-less PS3664 spores were more sensitive to wet heat than either DPA-less FB122 spores or DPA-replete PS3664 spores, and the latter also retained viability during sporulation. These and previous results indicate that, in addition to alpha/beta-type SASP, DPA also is extremely important in spore resistance and stability and, further, that DPA has some specific role(s) in protecting spore DNA from damage. Specific roles for DPA in protecting spore DNA against damage may well have been a major driving force for the spore's accumulation of the high levels of this small molecule.

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

4.4
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