| Literature DB >> 28455417 |
Laura R Serbus1,2, Brian Garcia Rodriguez3,2, Zinat Sharmin3,2, A J M Zehadee Momtaz3,2, Steen Christensen3,2.
Abstract
The requirement of vitamins for core metabolic processes creates a unique set of pressures for arthropods subsisting on nutrient-limited diets. While endosymbiotic bacteria carried by arthropods have been widely implicated in vitamin provisioning, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not well understood. To address this issue, standardized predictive assessment of vitamin metabolism was performed in 50 endosymbionts of insects and arachnids. The results predicted that arthropod endosymbionts overall have little capacity for complete de novo biosynthesis of conventional or active vitamin forms. Partial biosynthesis pathways were commonly predicted, suggesting a substantial role in vitamin provisioning. Neither taxonomic relationships between host and symbiont, nor the mode of host-symbiont interaction were clear predictors of endosymbiont vitamin pathway capacity. Endosymbiont genome size and the synthetic capacity of nonsymbiont taxonomic relatives were more reliable predictors. We developed a new software application that also predicted that last-step conversion of intermediates into active vitamin forms may contribute further to vitamin biosynthesis by endosymbionts. Most instances of predicted vitamin conversion were paralleled by predictions of vitamin use. This is consistent with achievement of provisioning in some cases through upregulation of pathways that were retained for endosymbiont benefit. The predicted absence of other enzyme classes further suggests a baseline of vitamin requirement by the majority of endosymbionts, as well as some instances of putative mutualism. Adaptation of this workflow to analysis of other organisms and metabolic pathways will provide new routes for considering the molecular basis for symbiosis on a comprehensive scale.Entities:
Keywords: arthropod; endosymbiont; provisioning; symbiosis; vitamin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28455417 PMCID: PMC5473766 DOI: 10.1534/g3.117.042184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: G3 (Bethesda) ISSN: 2160-1836 Impact factor: 3.154
Vitamin nomenclature used in this study
| Vitamin | Conventional Name | Compound Name | Active Form | KEGG Compound ID | Active Form Distinct from Vitamin Form |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Retinol | 11- | C02110 | + | |
| B1 | Thiamine | Thiamine | Thiamine diphosphate | C00068 | + |
| B2 | Riboflavin | Riboflavin | Flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) | C00016 | + |
| Flavin mononucleotide (FMN) | C00061 | ||||
| B3 | Niacin | Nicotinamide | Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) | C00003 | + |
| Nicotinate | Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP) | C00006 | |||
| B5 | Pantothenate | ( | Coenzyme A | C00010 | + |
| B6 | Pyridoxine | Pyridoxine | Pyridoxal-5-phosphate | C00018 | + |
| B7 | Biotin | Biotin | Biotin | C00120 | − |
| B9 | Folic acid | Folate | 5,6,7,8-Tetrahydrofolate | C00101 | + |
| B12 | Cobalamin | B12a (commercial) | Adenosylcobalamin | C00194 | + |
| B12r (natural form) | |||||
| B12s (natural form) | |||||
| C | Ascorbic acid | L-Ascorbate | L-Ascorbate | C00072 | − |
| D | D2 or D3 | Ergocalciferol | Ergocalciferol | C05441 | − |
| Cholecalciferol | Cholecalciferol | C05443 | |||
| E | Tocopherol | α-Tocopherol | α-Tocopherol | C02477 | − |
| α-Tocotrienol | α-Tocotrienol | C14153 | |||
| K | K1 or K2 | Phylloquinone | Phylloquinone | C03313 | − |
| Menaquinone | Menaquinone | C00828 |
Figure 1Pathway classification criteria. Circles: forms of the compound, ranging from Input, to intermediates (indicated by letters), to Final Product. Boxes: enzymes involved in pathway. Numbers indicate which step of the pathway is carried out by each enzyme. Green: predicted homolog of the enzyme has been reported. White: no enzyme homolog identified to date. (A) Representation of a complete pathway. (B) Pathways with no predicted synthetic capacity. (C) Partial pathways, synthetic capacity unclear.
Figure 2Predictions of vitamin pathway capacity in arthropod endosymbionts and nonsymbiont taxonomic relatives. Red: pathways predicted as complete. Orange: pathway assumed complete. Cyan: predicted as a partial pathway. Dark blue: no predicted synthetic capacity. *Prediction includes contribution of a substitute enzyme. **Pathway has been confirmed as functional in vitro. (A) Left side: endosymbiont capacity for de novo biosynthesis of conventional vitamin forms. Right side: capacity for de novo biosynthesis of active vitamin forms. (B) Overall synthetic capacity of each taxonomic group for conventional vs. active vitamin biosynthesis. (C) Left side: nonsymbiont capacity for de novo biosynthesis of conventional vitamin forms. Right side: capacity for de novo biosynthesis of active vitamin forms. (D) Summary: synthetic capacity of each taxonomic group for conventional vs. active vitamin biosynthesis.
Figure 3Regression analysis to test the relationship between vitamin biosynthesis predictions and endosymbiont protein-coding capacity. Best-fit models were determined by SPSS. Taxonomic associations of each data point are indicated by symbols explained below the graphs. Left panel: for each endosymbiont, predictions of complete vitamin biosynthesis pathways were compared against the number of protein-coding genes. Right panel: comparison of partial vitamin pathways against the number of protein-coding genes for each endosymbiont.
Figure 4Software predictions of vitamin conversion and vitamin utility index across endosymbiont and nonsymbiont taxa. Red: organism has one or more predicted enzyme homologs that are directly relevant to the vitamin examined. Blue: organism had no predicted homologs of the related enzymes. (A and B) Endosymbiont predictions. (A) Predicted capacity to (left panel) convert intermediates directly into active vitamin forms and (right panel) utilize active vitamin forms. (B) Overall comparisons of vitamin conversion and utility by endosymbiont taxonomic groups. (C and D) Predictions for nonsymbionts that are taxonomically related to arthropod endosymbionts. (C) Predicted capacity to (left panel) convert intermediates directly into active vitamin forms and (right panel) utilize active vitamin forms. (D) Overall comparisons of vitamin conversion and utility by nonsymbiont taxonomic groups.
Figure 5Predicted vitamin dependency index of endosymbionts and related nonsymbionts. The images show case-by-case interpretations from comparison of the vitamin conversion index to the vitamin utility index. Light gray: cases where last-step conversion of an intermediate into an active vitamin form was predicted, but no utility for the product was apparent. Medium gray: cases where capacity was predicted for both vitamin conversion and vitamin utility by the organism. Dark gray: cases where no capacity for vitamin conversion was detected, though utility of the active vitamin product was predicted. Comparisons of the predicted vitamin utility index against the predicted vitamin conversion index are displayed for (A) endosymbionts and (B) non-symbiont taxonomic relatives of the endosymbionts. (C) The predicted dependency profiles for endosymbionts versus non-symbionts are also displayed with respect to each active vitamin form.