Nitric oxide reductases of prokaryotes with emphasis on the respiratory, heme?copper oxidase type

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 194-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
W ZUMFT
Keyword(s):  
1994 ◽  
Vol 121 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
J VANDEROOST ◽  
A DEBOER ◽  
J DEGIER ◽  
W ZUMFT ◽  
A STOUTHAMER ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 367 (1593) ◽  
pp. 1195-1203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshitsugu Shiro ◽  
Hiroshi Sugimoto ◽  
Takehiko Tosha ◽  
Shingo Nagano ◽  
Tomoya Hino

The crystal structure of the bacterial nitric oxide reductase (cNOR) from Pseudomonas aeruginosa is reported. Its overall structure is similar to those of the main subunit of aerobic and micro-aerobic cytochrome oxidases (COXs), in agreement with the hypothesis that all these enzymes are members of the haem-copper oxidase superfamily. However, substantial structural differences between cNOR and COX are observed in the catalytic centre and the delivery pathway of the catalytic protons, which should be reflected in functional differences between these respiratory enzymes. On the basis of the cNOR structure, we propose a possible reaction mechanism of nitric oxide reduction to nitrous oxide as a working hypothesis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (12) ◽  
pp. e00559-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiu Meng ◽  
Jianhua Yin ◽  
Miao Jin ◽  
Haichun Gao

ABSTRACTNitrite has been used as a bacteriostatic agent for centuries in food preservation. It is widely accepted that this biologically inert molecule functions indirectly, serving as a stable reservoir of bioactive nitric oxide (NO) and other reactive nitrogen species to impact physiology. As a result, to date, we know surprisingly little aboutin vivotargets of nitrite. Here, we carry out comparative analyses of nitrite and NO physiology inEscherichia coliand inShewanella oneidensis, a Gram-negative environmental bacterium renowned for respiratory versatility. These two bacteria differ from each other in many aspects of nitrite and NO physiology, including NO generation, NO degradation, and unexpectedly, their contrary susceptibility to nitrite and NO. In cell extracts of both bacteria, most of the NO targets are also susceptible to nitrite, and vice versa. However, with respect to growth inhibition caused by NO, the targets are impacted distinctly; NO targets are responsible for the inhibition of growth ofE. colibut not ofS. oneidensis. More surprisingly, all proteins identified to be implicated in NO tolerance in other bacteria appear to play a dispensable role in protectingS. oneidensisagainst NO. These data suggest thatS. oneidensisis equipped with a robust but yet unknown NO protecting system. In the case of nitrite, it is clear that the target of physiological significance in both bacteria is cytochrome heme-copper oxidase.IMPORTANCENitrite is toxic to living organisms at high levels, but such antibacterial effects of nitrite are attributable to the formation of nitric oxide (NO), a highly reactive radical gas molecule. Here, we report thatShewanella oneidensisis highly resistant to NO but sensitive to nitrite compared toEscherichia coliby approximately 4-fold. In both bacteria, nitrite inhibits bacterial growth by targeting cytochrome heme-copper oxidase. In contrast, the targets of NO are diverse. Although these targets are similar inE. coliandS. oneidensis, they are responsible for growth inhibition caused by NO in the former but not in the latter. Overall, the presented data, along with the previous data, solidify a proposal that thein vivotargets of NO and nitrite in bacteria are largely different.


1994 ◽  
Vol 121 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Oost ◽  
Anthonius P.N. Boer ◽  
Jan-Willem L. Gier ◽  
Walter G. Zumft ◽  
Adriaan H. Stouthamer ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document