Application of nitroarene dioxygenases in the design of novel strains that degrade chloronitrobenzenes.

Widespread application of chloronitrobenzenes as feedstocks for the production of industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals has resulted in extensive environmental contamination with these toxic compounds, where they pose significant risks to the health of humans and wildlife. While biotreatment in general is an attractive solution for remediation, its effectiveness is limited with chloronitrobenzenes due to the small number of strains that can effectively mineralize these compounds and their ability to degrade only select isomers. To address this need, we created engineered strains with a novel degradation pathway that reduces the total number of steps required to convert chloronitrobenzenes into compounds of central metabolism. We examined the ability of 2-nitrotoluene 2,3-dioxygenase from Acidovorax sp. strain JS42, nitrobenzene 1,2-dioxygenase (NBDO) from Comamonas sp. strain JS765, as well as active-site mutants of NBDO to generate chlorocatechols from chloronitrobenzenes, and identified the most efficient enzymes. Introduction of the wild-type NBDO and the F293Q variant into Ralstonia sp. strain JS705, a strain carrying the modified ortho pathway for chlorocatechol metabolism, resulted in bacterial strains that were able to sustainably grow on all three chloronitrobenzene isomers without addition of co-substrates or co-inducers. These first-generation engineered strains demonstrate the utility of nitroarene dioxygenases in expanding the metabolic capabilities of bacteria and provide new options for improved biotreatment of chloronitrobenzene-contaminated sites

The genome of Bacillus tequilensis EA-CB0015 sheds light into its epiphytic lifestyle and potential as a biocontrol agent

Different Bacillus species have successfully been used as biopesticides against a broad range of plant pathogens. Among these, Bacillus tequilensis EA-CB0015 has shown to efficiently control Black sigatoka disease in banana plants, presumably by mechanisms of adaptation that involve modifying the phyllosphere environment. Here, we report the complete genome of strain EA-CB0015, its precise taxonomic identity, and determined key genetic features that may contribute to its effective biocontrol of plant pathogens. We found that B. tequilensis EA-CB0015 harbors a singular 4 Mb circular chromosome, with 3,951 protein-coding sequences. Multi-locus sequence analysis (MLSA) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) analysis classified strain EA-CB0015 as B. tequilensis. Encoded within its genome are biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) for surfactin, iturin, plipastatin, bacillibactin, bacilysin, subtilosin A, sporulation killing factor, and other natural products that may facilitate inter-microbial warfare. Genes for indole-acetic acid (IAA) synthesis, the use of diverse carbon sources, and a multicellular lifestyle involving motility, biofilm formation, quorum sensing, competence, and sporulation suggest EA-CB0015 is adept at colonizing plant surfaces. Defensive mechanisms to survive invading viral infections and preserve genome integrity include putative type I and type II restriction modification (RM) and toxin/antitoxin (TA) systems. The presence of bacteriophage sequences, genomic islands, transposable elements, virulence factors, and antibiotic resistance genes indicate prior occurrences of genetic exchange. Altogether, the genome of EA-CB0015 supports its function as a biocontrol agent against phytopathogens and suggest it has adapted to thrive within phyllosphere environments

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

microbeMASST: A Taxonomically-informed Mass Spectrometry Search Tool for Microbial Metabolomics Data

microbeMASST, a taxonomically informed mass spectrometry (MS) search tool, tackles limited microbial metabolite annotation in untargeted metabolomics experiments. Leveraging a curated database of >60,000 microbial monocultures, users can search known and unknown MS/MS spectra and link them to their respective microbial producers via MS/MS fragmentation patterns. Identification of microbe-derived metabolites and relative producers without a priori knowledge will vastly enhance the understanding of microorganisms’ role in ecology and human health

A Taxonomically-informed Mass Spectrometry Search Tool for Microbial Metabolomics Data

MicrobeMASST, a taxonomically-informed mass spectrometry (MS) search tool, tackles limited microbial metabolite annotation in untargeted metabolomics experiments. Leveraging a curated database of >60,000 microbial monocultures, users can search known and unknown MS/MS spectra and link them to their respective microbial producers via MS/MS fragmentation patterns. Identification of microbial-derived metabolites and relative producers, without a priori knowledge, will vastly enhance the understanding of microorganisms’ role in ecology and human health