| Literature DB >> 27539744 |
Weixia Gao1, Fenghong Liu2, Wei Zhang1, Yufen Quan1, Yulei Dang1, Jun Feng1, Yanyan Gu1, Shufang Wang2, Cunjiang Song1, Chao Yang3.
Abstract
Poly-γ-glutamic acid (γ-PGA) is an important natural biopolymer that is used widely in fields of foods, medicine, cosmetics, and agriculture. Several B. amyloliquefaciens LL3 mutants were constructed to improve γ-PGA synthesis via single or multiple marker-less in-frame deletions of four gene clusters (itu, bae, srf, and fen) encoding antibiotic substances. γ-PGA synthesis by the Δsrf mutant showed a slight increase (4.1 g/L) compared with that of the wild-type strain (3.3 g/L). The ΔituΔsrf mutant showed increased γ-PGA yield from 3.3 to 4.5 g/L, with an increase of 36.4%. The γ-PGA yield of the ΔituΔsrfΔfen and ΔituΔsrfΔfenΔbae mutants did not show a further increase. The four gene clusters' roles in swarming motility and biofilm formation were also studied. The Δsrf and Δbae mutant strains were both significantly defective in swarming, indicating that bacillaene and surfactin are involved in swarming motility of B. amyloliquefaciens LL3. Furthermore, Δsrf and Δitu mutant strains were obviously defective in biofilm formation; therefore, iturin and surfactin must play important roles in biofilm formation in B. amyloliquefaciens LL3.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic substance; biofilm formation; gene marker-less deletion; poly-γ-glutamic acid; swarming
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27539744 PMCID: PMC5300885 DOI: 10.1002/mbo3.398
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiologyopen ISSN: 2045-8827 Impact factor: 3.139
Comparison of expression level of the genes which encode the four antibiotic substance between the B. amyloliquefaciens LL3 (γ‐PGA+) and LL3 ΔpgsBCA (γ‐PGA−)
| Gene | Length | Product | Foldchange |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 10755 | Nonribosomal surfactin synthetase, SrfAA | 8.08 |
|
| 10761 | Nonribosomal surfactin synthetase, SrfAB | 12.37 |
|
| 3840 | Nonribosomal surfactin synthetase C, SrfC | 12.51 |
|
| 732 | Nonribosomal surfactin synthetase D, SrfD | 10.46 |
|
| 675 | Surfactin synthetase‐activating enzyme | 1.69 |
|
| 7851 | Iturin A synthetase C, ItuC | 9.32 |
|
| 16086 | Iturin A synthetase B, ItuB | 10.52 |
|
| 11949 | Iturin A synthetase A, ItuA | 12.02 |
|
| 1203 | Malonyl‐CoA transacylase, ItuD | 1.86 |
|
| 3846 | Fengycin synthetase E, FenE | 11.43 |
|
| 7677 | Fengycin synthetase D, FenD | 9.93 |
|
| 693 | Polyketide biosynthesis zinc‐dependent hydrolase, BaeB | 1.07 |
|
| 870 | Polyketide biosynthesis malonyl‐CoA‐acyl‐carrier‐protein transacylase, BaeC | 1.94 |
|
| 975 | Polyketide biosynthesis acyltransferase homolog, BaeD | 3.23 |
|
| 2238 | Polyketide biosynthesis protein, BaeE | 4.14 |
|
| 249 | Polyketide biosynthesis acyl‐carrier‐protein, AcpK | 1.63 |
|
| 1263 | Polyketide biosynthesis 3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐ACP synthase, PksG | 6.50 |
|
| 774 | Probable polyketide biosynthesis enoyl‐CoA hydratase, PksH | 6.17 |
|
| 750 | Putative polyketide biosynthesis enoyl‐CoA isomerase, PksI | 4.95 |
|
| 14952 | Polyketide synthase, PksJ | 11.78 |
|
| 13431 | Polyketide synthase, PksL | 15.59 |
|
| 10542 | Polyketide synthase, PksM | 11.12 |
|
| 16314 | Polyketide synthase, PksN | 12.64 |
|
| 7446 | Polyketide synthase, PksR | 14.42 |
|
| 1212 | Polyketide biosynthesis cytochrome P450, PksS | 2.11 |
Figure 1(A) Schematic of modular engineering approach in Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LL3 strain. The X marks indicate the gene deletions in the optimized pathway. (B) Condensed structural formulae of the three cyclic lipopeptides, surfactin, iturin A, and fengycin, produced by B. amyloliquefaciens LL3
Strains and plasmids used in this study
| Plasmids or Strains | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Plasmids | ||
| pKSU | pKSV7 carrying the | Zhang et al. ( |
| pKSU‐Δ | pKSU carrying a mutant copy of the | This study |
| pKSU‐Δ | pKSU carrying a mutant copy of the | This study |
| pKSU‐Δ | pKSU carrying a mutant copy of the | This study |
| Strains | ||
|
| ||
| LL3 | Glutamic acid‐independent poly‐γ‐glutamic acid (γ‐PGA)‐producing strain | Geng et al. ( |
| LL3Δ | LL3 carrying an in‐frame deletion in the | Zhang et al. ( |
| LL3Δ | LL3 Δ | Unpublished |
| LL3Δ | LL3 Δ | This study |
| LL3Δ | LL3 Δ | This study |
| LL3Δ | LL3 Δ | This study |
| LL3Δ | LL3 Δ | This study |
| LL‐IS | LL3Δ | This study |
| LL‐ISF | LL‐IS deleted for the | This study |
| LL‐ ISFB | LL‐ISF deleted for the | This study |
|
| ||
| DH5α |
| TransGen |
| GM2163 | F−
| Fermentas |
Oligonucleotide primers used in this study
| Primer names | Sequence (5′–3′) |
|---|---|
| BaeUP‐F | CGG |
| BaeUP‐R | CATCGAGAAGTTCTTAAAAGATCCGGGCAGAC |
| BaeDN‐F | CCCGGATCTTTTAAGAACTTCTCGATGCCTAC |
| BaeDN‐R | TGA |
| BaeOUT‐F | ATGATACCGCTCCATGTCAGCTCACTTG |
| BaeOUT‐R | CGCCGTGCTTCGTTCATCTAATTCG |
| SrfUP‐F | GCC |
| SrfUP‐R | GGCATCGATATTGCTCCAGAGATACTGTAAAC |
| SrfDN‐F | CAGTATCTCTGGAGCAATATCGATGCCGATCG |
| SrfDN‐R | CGC |
| SrfOUT‐F | GGAGGCTGTTTCTAAGGAAGAATTGAC |
| SrfOUT‐R | GACGTTTTATTTTGCCGGTCTGTTG |
| FenUP‐F | TGT |
| FenUP‐R | AGAAATATCCTTACGCAAACGGCAAAGTGGACC |
| FenDN‐F | TTTGCCGTTTGCGTAAGGATATTTCTGGTGCCG |
| FenDN‐R | GCA |
| FenOUT‐F | AATGGGTCAGCCGGTAGCTGGCAAG |
| FenOUT‐R | TGCGTCAAATTCAGGGGAAACATCG |
| ItuUP‐F | CGA |
| ItuUP‐R | TAACAGTCAGTGTGTTGGGATCGTTTGCGGGAGAC |
| ItuDN‐F | GCAAACGATCCCAACACACTGACTGTTAAAATAGC |
| ItuDN‐R | CGA |
| ItuOUT‐F | CGGTCATGTAGCCGATCTCACCTGG |
| ItuOUT‐R | ATTGAAATCTTCCGAATGGTGCTTG |
| qRpsU‐F | GTCGTTAGAAAAAACGAATCGCTTG |
| qRpsU‐R | TTGCGTTTTCTAGCAGCTTCTGACT |
| qPgsB‐F | TAGCCTGTGCTGCCGTACTAATCAT |
| qPgsB‐R | GTTTCCGTTTGATCGGTTTCTCCT |
Restriction sites used for the cloning of PCR amplicons are indicated in bold
Figure 2Confirmation of the deletion of the genes by agarose gel electrophoresis of PCR products with primers BaeOUT‐F/R (lanes 1 and 2), SrfOUT‐F/R (lanes 3 and 4), ItuOUT‐F/R (lanes 5 and 6), and FenOUT‐F/R (lanes 7 and 8). Chromosomal DNA of the mutant strains served as the template for PCR. Fragments of the wild‐type strain were too long to obtain PCR products
Figure 3Swarming experiments of the wild‐type strain, B. amyloliquefaciens LL3Δsrf, LL3Δfen, LL3Δbae, LL3Δitu, LL‐IS (ΔituΔsrf), LL‐ISF (ΔituΔsrfΔfen), and LL‐ISFB (ΔituΔsrfΔfenΔbae). Strains were observed after 24‐hr cultivation on LB medium with 0.5% agar
Figure 4Biofilm formation of the wild‐type strain, B. amyloliquefaciens LL3Δsrf, LL3Δitu, LL3Δbae, LL3Δfen, LL‐IS (ΔituΔsrf), LL‐ISF (ΔituΔsrfΔfen), and LL‐ISFB (ΔituΔsrfΔfenΔbae)
Figure 5(A) Comparison of culture viscosity, DCW, and γ‐PGA yield of the wild‐type strain and the mutant strains carrying single‐gene deletion (B. amyloliquefaciens LL3Δsrf, LL3Δbae, LL3Δfen, and LL3Δitu) after 48 hr of cultivation; (B) Comparison of culture viscosity, DCW, and γ‐PGA yield of the wild‐type and mutant strains carrying multiple deletions (B. amyloliquefaciens LL‐IS, LL‐ISF, and LL‐ISFB) after 48 hr of cultivation
Figure 6HPLC‐MS spectrograms of standard surfactin and surfactin produced by the wild strain and LL3Δsrf. (A, B) HPLC and MS spectrograms of standard surfactin. (C, D) HPLC and MS spectrograms of surfactin from the wild strain. (E, F) HPLC and MS spectrograms of the LL3Δsrf culture broth, which was disrupted in srf cluster and deficient in production of surfactin