Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Possible Reasons for Difference in Sensitivity to Oxygen of Two Escherichia coli Strains

  • Published:
Biochemistry (Moscow) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In preliminary experiments it was found that Escherichia coli strains AB1157 and KS400 are different in their abilities to grow under various oxygen levels in cultivation medium: the first strain does not grow under high oxygen conditions, unlike the second one. To investigate whether the damage to cellular components due to production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) was responsible for this difference, the intensity of free radical oxidation of proteins and lipids as well as the activities of selected antioxidant and associated enzymes (superoxide dismutase, catalase, peroxidase, glutathione reductase, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase) were compared in the two strains. The level of thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances was 1.8–2.5-fold higher in AB1157 than in KS400, but the concentration of carbonyl proteins was lower in the AB1157 strain. In both strains growth under higher oxygen levels resulted in higher superoxide dismutase and peroxidase activities in both exponential and stationary phases. Overall, the activities of antioxidant enzymes were always higher in the KS400 strain than in AB1157. The results for both lipid and protein oxidative damage and antioxidant enzyme activities suggest that the differences in oxygen tolerance between these two strains may be due to their different abilities to cope with ROS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DNPH:

2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine

G6PDH:

glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase

GR:

glutathione reductase

GSH, GSSG:

reduced and oxidized forms of glutathione, respectively

ROS:

reactive oxygen species

SOD:

superoxide dismutase

TBARS:

thiobarbituric acid reactive substances

TEMED:

N,N,N′,N′-tetramethylethylenediamine

REFERENCES

  1. Beyer, W., Imlay, J., and Fridovich, I. (1991) Progr. Nucleic Acids Res., 40, 221–253.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gonzalez-Flecha, B., and Demple, B. (1995) J. Biol. Chem., 270, 13681–13687.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gonzalez-Flecha, B., and Demple, B. (1997) J. Bacteriol., 179, 382–388.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Demple, B. (1999) Clin. Exp. Pharm. Physiol., 26, 64–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Keyer, K., and Imlay, J. (1997) J. Biol. Chem., 272, 27652–27659.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Skulachev, V. (1997) Biosci. Rep., 17, 347–366.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lushchak, V. I. (2001) Biochemistry (Moscow), 66, 476–489.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Storz, G., and Polla, A B. (1996) Stress-Inducible Cellular Responses (Feige, U., Morimoto, R. I., Yahara, I., and Polla, B., eds.) Birkhauser Verlag, Bazel, pp. 239–254.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lushchak, V. I. (2002) in Oxidative Stress at Molecular, Cellular, and Organ Levels (Johnson, P., and Boldyrev, A., eds.) Research Signpost, pp. 45–65.

  10. Demple, B., and Harrison, L. (1994) Ann. Rev. Biochem., 63, 915–948.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pomposiello, P. J., and Demple, B. (2000) Encyclopedia of Microbiology, 2nd Edn., Vol. 3, Academic Press, N. Y., pp. O78–O84.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hidalgo, E., and Demple, B. (1996) in Regulation of Gene Expression in Escherichia coli (Lin, E. C. C., and Lynch, A. S., eds.) pp. 435–452.

  13. Hidalgo, E., and Demple, B. (1997) EMBO J., 16, 1056–1065.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Semchyshyn, H., Dylyovyj, M., Klymenko, A., and Lushchak, V. (2001) Ukr. Biochem. J., 72, 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lushchak, V., Lushchak, L., Mota, A., and Hermes-Lima, M. (2001) Am. J. Physiol., 280, R100–R107.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Claiborn, A., and Fridovich, I. (1979) J. Biol. Chem., 254, 4245–4252.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Semchyshyn, H., Dylyovyj, M., and Lushchak, V. (2002) Ukr. Biochem. J., 74, 34–41.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Brooks, S. P. J. (1992) BioTechniques, 13, 906–911.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lushchak, V. I., Bahnjukova, T. V., and Storey, K. B. (1998) Braz. J. Biol. Med. Res., 31, 1059–1067.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lenz, A. G., Costabel, U., Shaltiel, S., and Levine, R. L. (1989) Analyt. Biochem., 177, 419–425.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rice-Evans, C. A., Diplock, A. T., and Symons, M. C. R. (1991) in Laboratory Techniques in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (Burdon, R. H., and van Knippenberg, P. H., eds.) Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 147–149.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bradford, M. M. (1976) Analyt. Biochem., 72, 248–254.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Korshunov, S. S., Skulachev, V. P., and Starkov, A. A. (1997) FEBS Lett., 416, 15–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Skulachev, V. P. (1997) Quart. Rev. Biophys., 29, 169–202.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Benov, L., and Fridovich, I. (1996) Mut. Res., 357, 231–236.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Demple, B. (1991) Annu. Rev. Genet., 25, 315–337.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sevinc, M. S., Ens, W., and Loewen, P. C. (1995) Eur. J. Biochem., 230, 127–132.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Loewen, P. C., and Hennge-Aronis, R. (1994) Annu. Rev. Microbiol., 48, 53–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schellhorn, H. E. (1995) FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 131, 113–119.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gonzalez-Flecha, B., and Demple, B. (1997) J. Bacteriol., 179, 6181–6186.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Manchado, M., Micha, K., and Pueyo, C. (2000) J. Bacteriol., 182, 6842–6844.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Meir, E., and Yagil, E. (1990) Curr. Microbiol., 20, 139–143.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry, Vassyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 76025, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine

    H. Semchyshyn & V. Lushchak

  2. Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ont. K1S 5B6, Canada

    K. Storey

Authors
  1. H. Semchyshyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Lushchak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Storey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Lushchak.

Additional information

__________

Translated from Biokhimiya, Vol. 70, No. 4, 2005, pp. 514–522.

Original Russian Text Copyright © 2005 by Semchyshyn, Lushchak, Storey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Semchyshyn, H., Lushchak, V. & Storey, K. Possible Reasons for Difference in Sensitivity to Oxygen of Two Escherichia coli Strains. Biochemistry (Moscow) 70, 424–431 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10541-005-0132-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10541-005-0132-1

Key words

Search

Navigation