Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

The Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology (한국미생물·생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comprehensive Analysis of Proteomic Differences between Escherichia coli K-12 and B Strains Using Multiplexed Isobaric Tandem Mass Tag (TMT) Labeling

  • Han, Mee-Jung (Department of Biomolecular and Chemical Engineering, Dongyang University)
  • Received : 2017.08.10
  • Accepted : 2017.09.03
  • Published : 2017.11.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Escherichia coli K-12 and B strains are among the most frequently used bacterial hosts for scientific research and biotechnological applications. However, omics analyses have revealed that E. coli K-12 and B exhibit notably different genotypic and phenotypic attributes, even though they were derived from the same ancestor. In a previous study, we identified a limited number of proteins from the two strains using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). In this study, an in-depth analysis of the physiological behavior of the E. coli K-12 and B strains at the proteomic level was performed using six-plex isobaric tandem mass tag-based quantitative MS. Additionally, the best lysis buffer for increasing the efficiency of protein extraction was selected from three tested buffers prior to the quantitative proteomic analysis. This study identifies the largest number of proteins in the two E. coli strains reported to date and is the first to show the dynamics of these proteins. Notable differences in proteins associated with key cellular properties, including some metabolic pathways, the biosynthesis and degradation of amino acids, membrane integrity, cellular tolerance, and motility, were found between the two representative strains. Compared with previous studies, these proteomic results provide a more holistic view of the overall state of E. coli cells based on a single proteomic study and reveal significant insights into why the two strains show distinct phenotypes. Additionally, the resulting data provide in-depth information that will help fine-tune processes in the future.

Keywords

References

  1. Luli GW, Strohl WR. 1990. Comparison of growth, acetate production, and acetate inhibition of Escherichia coli strains in batch and fed-batch fermentations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56: 1004-1011.
  2. Shiloach J, Kaufman J, Guillard AS, Fass R. 1996. Effect of glucose supply strategy on acetate accumulation, growth, and recombinant protein production by Escherichia coli BL21 (lambdaDE3) and Escherichia coli JM109. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 49: 421-428.
  3. Yoon SH, Han MJ, Jeong H, Lee CH, Xia XX, Lee DH, et al. 2012. Comparative multi-omics systems analysis of Escherichia coli strains B and K-12. Genome Biol. 13: R37. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2012-13-5-r37
  4. Marisch K, Bayer K, Scharl T, Mairhofer J, Krempl PM, Hummel K, et al. 2013. A comparative analysis of industrial Escherichia coli K-12 and B strains in high-glucose batch cultivations on process-, transcriptome- and proteome level. PLoS One 8: e70516. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070516
  5. Xia XX, Han MJ, Lee SY, Yoo JS. 2008. Comparison of the extracellular proteomes of Escherichia coli B and K-12 strains during high cell density cultivation. Proteomics 8: 2089-2103. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200700826
  6. Han MJ, Lee SY, Hong SH. 2012. Comparative analysis of envelope proteomes in Escherichia coli B and K-12 strains. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 22: 470-478. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1110.10080
  7. Han MJ, Kim JY, Kim JA. 2014. Comparison of the largescale periplasmic proteomes of the Escherichia coli K-12 and B strains. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 117: 437-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2013.09.008
  8. Han MJ. 2016. Exploring the proteomic characteristics of the Escherichia coli B and K-12 strains in different cellular compartments. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 122: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2015.12.005
  9. Li Z, Adams RM, Chourey K, Hurst GB, Hettich RL, Pan C. 2012. Systematic comparison of label-free, metabolic labeling, and isobaric chemical labeling for quantitative proteomics on LTQ Orbitrap Velos. J. Proteome Res. 11: 1582-1590. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr200748h
  10. Ping L, Zhang H, Zhai L, Dammer EB, Duong DM, Li N, et al. 2013. Quantitative proteomics reveals significant changes in cell shape and an energy shift after IPTG induction via an optimized SILAC approach for Escherichia coli. J. Proteome Res. 12: 5978-5988. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr400775w
  11. Wu Q, Yang A, Zou W, Duan Z, Liu J, Chen J, et al. 2013. Transcriptional engineering of Escherichia coli K4 for fructosylated chondroitin production. Biotechnol. Prog. 29:1140-1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.1777
  12. Washburn MP, Wolters D, Yates JR 3rd. 2001. Large-scale analysis of the yeast proteome by multidimensional protein identification technology. Nat. Biotechnol. 19: 242-247. https://doi.org/10.1038/85686
  13. Carvalho PC, Xu T, Han X, Cociorva D, Barbosa VC, Yates JR 3rd. 2009. YADA: a tool for taking the most out of highresolution spectra. Bioinformatics 25: 2734-2736. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp489
  14. Tabb DL, McDonald WH, Yates JR 3rd. 2002. DTASelect and Contrast: tools for assembling and comparing protein identifications from shotgun proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 1:21-26. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr015504q
  15. Raso C, Cosentino C, Gaspari M, Malara N, Han X, McClatchy D, et al. 2012. Characterization of breast cancer interstitial fluids by TmT labeling, LTQ-Orbitrap Velos mass spectrometry, and pathway analysis. J. Proteome Res. 11:3199-3210. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr2012347
  16. Cohen-Ben-Lulu GN, Francis NR, Shimoni E, Noy D, Davidov Y, Prasad K, et al. 2008. The bacterial flagellar switch complex is getting more complex. EMBO J. 27: 1134-1144. https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2008.48
  17. Jeong H, Barbe V, Lee CH, Vallenet D, Yu DS, Choi SH, et al. 2009. Genome sequences of Escherichia coli B s trains REL606 and BL21(DE3). J. Mol. Biol. 394: 644-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2009.09.052
  18. Archer CT, Kim JF, Jeong H, Park JH, Vickers CE, Lee SY, et al. 2011. The genome sequence of E. coli W (ATCC 9637):comparative genome analysis and an improved genomescale reconstruction of E. coli. BMC Genomics 12: 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-9
  19. Schneider D, Duperchy E, Depeyrot J, Coursange E, Lenski R, Blot M. 2002. Genomic comparisons among Escherichia coli strains B, K-12, and O157:H7 using IS elements as molecular markers. BMC Microbiol. 2: 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-2-18
  20. Fedyukina DV, Cavagnero S. 2011. Protein folding at the exit tunnel. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 40: 337-359. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-042910-155338

Cited by

  1. Combined Transcriptome and Proteome Analysis of RpoS Regulon Reveals Its Role in Spoilage Potential of Pseudomonas fluorescens vol.10, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00094
  2. Roles of Protein Histidine Phosphatase 1 (PHPT1) in Brown Adipocyte Differentiation vol.30, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1909.09003
  3. Comparative proteomic analysis reveals novel potential virulence factors of Aeromonas veronii vol.1486, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14480