4.6 Article

Nitrogen Utilization and Metabolism in Ruminococcus albus 8

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 80, 期 10, 页码 3095-3102

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00029-14

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
  2. National Research Initiative [2008-35206-18784, 2012-67015-19451]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The model rumen Firmicutes organism Ruminococcus albus 8 was grown using ammonia, urea, or peptides as the sole nitrogen source; growth was not observed with amino acids as the sole nitrogen source. Growth of R. albus 8 on ammonia and urea showed the same growth rate (0.08h(-1)) and similar maximum cell densities (for ammonia, the optical density at 600 nm [OD600] was 1.01; and for urea, the OD600 was 0.99); however, growth on peptides resulted in a nearly identical growth rate (0.09 h(-1)) and a lower maximum cell density (OD600 = 0.58). To identify differences in gene expression and enzyme activities, the transcript abundances of 10 different genes involved in nitrogen metabolism and specific enzyme activities were analyzed by harvesting mRNA and crude protein from cells at the mid-and late exponential phases of growth on the different N sources. Transcript abundances and enzyme activities varied according to nitrogen source, ammonia concentration, and growth phase. Growth of R. albus 8 on ammonia and urea was similar, with the only observed difference being an increase in urease transcript abundance and enzyme activity in urea-grown cultures. Growth of R. albus 8 on peptides showed a different nitrogen metabolism pattern, with higher gene transcript abundance levels of gdhA, glnA, gltB, amtB, glnK, and ureC, as well as higher activities of glutamate dehydrogenase and urease. These results demonstrate that ammonia, urea, and peptides can all serve as nitrogen sources for R. albus and that nitrogen metabolism genes and enzyme activities of R. albus 8 are regulated by nitrogen source and the level of ammonia in the growth medium.

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