Search

This study demonstrates the ability of Desulfitobacterium spp. to utilize aliphatic sulfonates as terminal electron acceptors (TEA) for growth. Isethionate (2-hydroxyethanesulfonate) reduction by Desulfitobacterium hafniense resulted in acetate as well as sulfide accumulation in accordance with the expectation that the carbon portion of isethionate was oxidized to acetate and the sulfur was reduced to sulfide. The presence of a polypeptide, approximately 97 kDa, was evident in isethionate-grown cells of Desulfitobacterium hafniense, Desulfitobacterium sp. strain PCE 1, and the two sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB)-Desulfovibrio desulfuricans IC1 (T. J. Lie, J. R. Leadbetter, and E. R. Leadbetter, Geomicrobiol. J. 15:135-149, 1998) and Desulfomicrobium norvegicum; this polypeptide was not detected when these bacteria were grown on TEA other than isethionate, suggesting involvement in its metabolism. The sulfate analogs molybdate and tungstate, effective in inhibiting sulfate reduction by SRB, were examined for their effects on sulfonate reduction. Molybdate effectively inhibited sulfonate reduction by strain IC1 and selectively inhibited isethionate (but not cysteate) reduction by Desulfitobacterium dehalogenans and Desulfitobacterium sp. strain PCE 1. Desulfitobacterium hafniense, however, grew with both isethionate and cysteate in the presence of molybdate. In contrast, tungstate only partially inhibited sulfonate reduction by both SRB and Desulfitobacterium spp. Similarly, another inhibitor of sulfate reduction, 1,8-dihydroxyanthraquinone, effectively inhibited sulfate reduction by SRB but only partially inhibited sulfonate reduction by both SRB and Desulfitobacterium hafniense.

Several low-molecular-weight sulfonates were added to microbial mat slurries to investigate their effects on sulfate reduction. Instantaneous production of sulfide occurred after taurine and cysteate were added to all of the microbial mats tested. The rates of production in the presence of taurine and cysteate were 35 and 24 microM HS(-) h(-1) in a stromatolite mat, 38 and 36 microM HS(-) h(-1) in a salt pond mat, and 27 and 18 microM HS(-) h(-1) in a salt marsh mat, respectively. The traditionally used substrates lactate and acetate stimulated the rate of sulfide production 3 to 10 times more than taurine and cysteate stimulated the rate of sulfide production in all mats, but when ethanol, glycolate, and glutamate were added to stromatolite mat slurries, the resulting increases were similar to the increases observed with taurine and cysteate. Isethionate, sulfosuccinate, and sulfobenzoate were tested only with the stromatolite mat slurry, and these compounds had much smaller effects on sulfide production. Addition of molybdate resulted in a greater inhibitory effect on acetate and lactate utilization than on sulfonate use, suggesting that different metabolic pathways were involved. In all of the mats tested taurine and cysteate were present in the pore water at nanomolar to micromolar concentrations. An enrichment culture from the stromatolite mat was obtained on cysteate in a medium lacking sulfate and incubated anaerobically. The rate of cysteate consumption by this enrichment culture was 1.6 pmol cell(-1) h(-1). Compared to the results of slurry studies, this rate suggests that organisms with properties similar to the properties of this enrichment culture are a major constituent of the sulfidogenic population. In addition, taurine was consumed at some of highest dilutions obtained from most-probable-number enrichment cultures obtained from stromatolite samples. Based on our comparison of the sulfide production rates found in various mats, low-molecular-weight sulfonates are important sources of C and S in these ecosystems.

The enrichment and isolation in pure culture of a bacterium, identified as a strain of Desulfovibrio, able to release and reduce the sulfur of isethionate (2-hydroxyethanesulfonate) and other sulfonates to support anaerobic respiratory growth, is described. The sulfonate moiety was the source of sulfur that served as the terminal electron acceptor, while the carbon skeleton of isethionate functioned as an accessory electron donor for the reduction of sulfite. Cysteate (alanine-3-sulfonate) and sulfoacetaldehyde (acetaldehyde-2-sulfonate) could also be used for anaerobic respiration, but many other sulfonates could not. A survey of known sulfate-reducing bacteria revealed that some, but not all, strains tested could utilize the sulfur of some sulfonates as terminal electron acceptor. Isethionate-grown cells of Desulfovibrio strain IC1 reduced sulfonate-sulfur in preference to that of sulfate; however, sulfate-grown cells reduced sulfate-sulfur in preference to that of sulfonate.

Strains of Escherichia coli lacking serine transacetylase or a positive regulator (Cys B protein) of the assimilatory sulfate reduction (ASR) pathway were unable to assimilate sulfonate-S, while single mutants in O-acetyl-L-serine sulfhydrylase (either 'A' or 'B') were able to do so. Mutants unable to reduce sulfate to sulfite were nonetheless able to form and accumulate sulfide and then cysteine from sulfonates, while strains lacking sulfite reductase were not. Thus terminal portions of the ASR pathway are involved in reduction of sulfonate-S to that of cysteine. E. coli K-12 formed cysteine more slowly, and accumulated lesser amounts of it with sulfonate-sulfur than it did from either sulfate or sulfite. These observations are consistent with our earlier report that sulfate is the preferred sulfur source when present simultaneously with a sulfonate.

Selected biochemical features of sulfonate assimilation in Escherichia coli K-12 were studied in detail. Competition between sulfonate-sulfur and sulfur sources with different oxidation states, such as cysteine, sulfite and sulfate, was examined. The ability of the enzyme sulfite reductase to attack the C-S linkage of sulfonates was directly examined. Intact cells formed sulfite from sulfonate-sulfur. In cysteine-grown cells, when cysteine was present with either cysteate or sulfate, assimilation of both of the more oxidized sulfur sources was substantially inhibited. In contrast, none of three sulfonates had a competitive effect on sulfate assimilation. In studies of competition between different sulfonates, the presence of taurine resulted in a decrease in cysteate uptake by one-half, while in the presence of isethionate, cysteate uptake was almost completely inhibited. In sulfite-grown cells, sulfonates had no competitive effect on sulfite utilization. An E. coli mutant lacking sulfite reductase and unable to utilize isethionate as the sole source of sulfur formed significant amounts of sulfite from isethionate. In cell extracts, sulfite reductase itself did not utilize sulfonate-sulfur as an electron acceptor. These findings indicate that sulfonate utilization may share some intermediates (e.g., sulfite) and regulatory features (repression by cysteine) of the assimilatory sulfate reductive pathway, but sulfonates do not exert regulatory effects on sulfate utilization. Other results suggest that unrecognized aspects of sulfonate metabolism, such as specific transport mechanisms for sulfonates and different regulatory features, may exist.

A variety of sulphonates were tested for their ability to serve as nutrients for Escherichia coli, Enterobacter aerogenes and Serratia marcescens. Cysteate, taurine and isethionate could not serve as sole sources of carbon and energy but, under aerobic conditions, could be utilized as sources of sulphur. Both sulphate and sulphonate supported equivalent cell yields, but the generation times varied with the sulphonate being metabolized. The sulphonate-S of HEPES buffer, dodecane sulphonate and methane sulphonate was also utilized by some strains, whereas the sulphonate-S of taurocholate was not. None of the sulphonates tested served as a sulphur source for growth under anaerobic conditions. Sulphonate utilization appears to be a constitutive trait; surprisingly, however, cells of E. coli and Ent. aerogenes utilized sulphate-S in preference to that of sulphonate, when both were present. E. coli mutants unable to use sulphate as a source of sulphur because of deficiencies in sulphate permease, ATP sulphurylase, adenylylsulphate kinase (APS kinase) or glutaredoxin and thioredoxin were able to utilize sulphonates; hence sulphate is not an obligatory intermediate in sulphonate utilization. However, mutants deficient in sulphite reductase were unable to utilize sulphonates; therefore, this enzyme must be involved in sulphonate utilization, though it is not yet known whether it acts upon the sulphonates themselves or upon the inorganic sulphite derived from them.