Cited by 2Bacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyEscherichia coli research studiesWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal

Competition between Escherichia coli strains expressing either a periplasmic or a membrane-bound nitrate reductase: does Nap confer a selective advantage during nitrate-limited growth?

POTTER, Laura C., MILLINGTON, Paul, GRIFFITHS, Lesley, THOMAS, Gavin H., COLE, Jeffrey A.·1999·Biochemical Journal

Abstract

The physiological role of the periplasmic nitrate reductase, Nap, one of the three nitrate reductases synthesized by Escherichia coli K-12, has been investigated. A series of double mutants that express only one nitrate reductase were grown anaerobically in batch cultures with glycerol as the non-fermentable carbon source and nitrate as the terminal electron acceptor. Only the strain expressing nitrate reductase A grew rapidly under these conditions. Introduction of a narL mutation severely decreased the growth rate of the nitrate reductase A strain, but enhanced the growth of the Nap+ strain. The ability to use nitrate as a terminal electron acceptor for anaerobic growth is therefore regulated primarily by the NarL protein at the level of transcription. Furthermore, the strain expressing nitrate reductase A had a substantial selective advantage in competition with the strain expressing only Nap during nitrate-sufficient continuous culture. However, the strain expressing Nap was preferentially selected during nitrate-limited continuous growth. The saturation constants for nitrate for the two strains (which numerically are equal to the nitrate concentrations at half of the maximum specific growth rate and therefore reflect the relative affinities for nitrate) were estimated using the integrated Monod equation to be 15 and 50 μM for Nap and nitrate reductase A respectively. This difference is sufficient to explain the selective advantage of the Nap+ strain during nitrate-limited growth. It is concluded that one physiological role of the periplasmic nitrate reductase of enteric bacteria is to enable bacteria to scavenge nitrate in nitrate-limited environments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1042/bj3440077

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
POTTER, L. C., MILLINGTON, P., GRIFFITHS, L., THOMAS, G. H., & COLE, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Venue
Biochemical Journal
Published
1999-11-08
Volume
344
Issue
1
Pages
77-84
ISSN
  • 0264-6021 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-8728
OpenAlex
W7214186159
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biochemical Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Endocrinology › Escherichia coli research studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Wastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Keywords
Escherichia coli, periplasmic nitrate reductase, NAP, NarL, competitive growth, anaerobic growth, transcriptional regulation, glycerol carbon source

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review