| Literature DB >> 32714295 |
Miyuki A Thirumurthy1, Andrew Hitchcock2, Angelo Cereda1, Jiawei Liu3, Marko S Chavez4, Bryant L Doss3, Robert Ros3, Mohamed Y El-Naggar4,5,6, John T Heap7,8, Thomas S Bibby9, Anne K Jones1.
Abstract
Biophotovoltaic devices utilize photosynthetic organisms such as the model cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 (Synechocystis) to generate current for power or hydrogen production from light. These devices have been improved by both architecture engineering and genetic engineering of the phototrophic organism. However, genetic approaches are limited by lack of understanding of cellular mechanisms of electron transfer from internal metabolism to the cell exterior. Type IV pili have been implicated in extracellular electron transfer (EET) in some species of heterotrophic bacteria. Furthermore, conductive cell surface filaments have been reported for cyanobacteria, including Synechocystis. However, it remains unclear whether these filaments are type IV pili and whether they are involved in EET. Herein, a mediatorless electrochemical setup is used to compare the electrogenic output of wild-type Synechocystis to that of a ΔpilD mutant that cannot produce type IV pili. No differences in photocurrent, i.e., current in response to illumination, are detectable. Furthermore, measurements of individual pili using conductive atomic force microscopy indicate these structures are not conductive. These results suggest that pili are not required for EET by Synechocystis, supporting a role for shuttling of electrons via soluble redox mediators or direct interactions between the cell surface and extracellular substrates.Entities:
Keywords: biophotovoltaics; cyanobacteria; extracellular electron transfer; nanowire; photocurrent; type IV pili
Year: 2020 PMID: 32714295 PMCID: PMC7344198 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01344
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
FIGURE 1Generation and phenotypic analysis of a ΔpilD mutant strain of Synechocystis. (A) Strategy for deletion of pilD (slr1120) by replacement with the chloramphenicol acetyl transferase (cat) cassette. The position of screening primers used in panel (B) is shown. (B) Agarose gel showing PCR products amplified with the pilD_screen_F/pilD_screen_R primer pair with wild type (WT, lane 1) or ΔpilD (lane 2) genomic DNA as template. A larger 1.35 kb PCR product is observed for the ΔpilD mutant compared to the 1.23 kb WT band. Lane M = HyperLadderTM 1 kb molecular weight marker (Bioline). (C) Growth of the WT, ΔpilD and ΔpilD* (suppressor mutant capable of photoautotrophic growth) in the absence or presence of 5 mM glucose. The originally isolated ΔpilD mutant cannot grow under photoautotrophic conditions; a ΔpsbB mutant that is also unable to grow photoautotrophically is included as a control. (D) Level of (pre)PilA1 in WT, ΔpilD and ΔpilD* in photomixotrophically grown whole-cell extracts determined by immunodetection with anti-PilA1 antibodies (upper panel). The accumulation of prePilA1 in the original mutant is decreased in the suppressor strain. The predicted molecular weights of pre- and processed PilA1 are indicated. The lower panel shows a duplicate Coomassie-stained SDS-PAGE gel to demonstrate approximately equal protein loading of each sample. (E) End-point RT-PCR analysis of pilA1 expression in WT and ΔpilD* showing the transcript is present in both strains. As expected, pilD transcripts were absent from the mutant; the rnpB housekeeping gene is included as a control. Reactions were performed in the presence (+) or absence (–) of reverse transcriptase.
Growth rate, chlorophyll content, and oxygen evolution of WT, ΔpilD and ΔpilD* Synechocystis cells.
| WT | PM | 12 ± 0.5 | 3.9 ± 0.3 | 41 ± 1 | 631 |
| WT | PA | 16 ± 0.5 | 4.2 ± 0.2 | 46 ± 5 | 657 |
| Δ | PM | 20 ± 1.0c | 3.5 ± 0.7c | 32 ± 8c | 549c |
| Δ | PM | 12 ± 0.5 | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 40 ± 4 | 632 |
| Δ | PA | 16 ± 0.5 | 4.1 ± 0.1 | 46 ± 4 | 673 |
FIGURE 2(A) Chronoamperograms showing photocurrent produced by wild-type (gray line) and ΔpilD* mutant (green line) Synechocystis immobilized on a carbon cloth electrode. Current production in the dark was allowed to stabilize prior to illumination at which point a sudden increase in current is observed. After approximately 12 min, cells are returned to the dark and a sudden decrease in current is observed. The light and dark phases are shown schematically under the x-axis. (B) Comparison of photocurrent produced by WT and ΔpilD* mutant Synechocystis cells. The photocurrent is normalized to the cell density of the sample applied to the working electrode, and photocurrent produced by WT grown under photomixotrophic conditions is set at 100%. Strains were grown under photomixotrophic (solid bars labeled PM) or photoautotrophic (hatched bars labeled PA) conditions (as described in “Materials and Methods”) and harvested at a similar phase of growth (determined by OD750). Error bars represent one standard deviation from the mean of three independent experiments.
FIGURE 3Representative AFM amplitude images of wild-type (A) and ΔpilD* (B) Synechocystis cells.
FIGURE 4Scanning electron micrographs of wild-type (A–D) and ΔpilD* (E–H) Synechocystis cells immobilized on a carbon cloth electrode. Arrows in panels (B–D) point to structures consistent with pili.
FIGURE 5Topographical atomic force microscopy images of a thin (A) and a thick (B) Synechocystis pilus. Current maps of the thin (C) and the thick (D) Synechocystis pili shown in (A,B). The current map in (C) shows a zoomed in region of the thin pilus, approximated by the box in (A). Representative current versus time curves during probe approach and retraction over the pili (red) and over the Au substrate (black) for the thin (E) and thick (F) pili. Cross marks in the topographical images indicate the locations where the curves were measured over the pili (red) and over the Au substrates (black). The scale bars in (A,B,D) indicate 200 nm. The scale bar in (C) indicates 100 nm.