Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Nov;81(22):7833-8.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.01982-15. Epub 2015 Sep 4.

Mercury Reduction and Methyl Mercury Degradation by the Soil Bacterium Xanthobacter autotrophicus Py2

Affiliations

Mercury Reduction and Methyl Mercury Degradation by the Soil Bacterium Xanthobacter autotrophicus Py2

Amanda K Petrus et al. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015 Nov.

Abstract

Two previously uncharacterized potential broad-spectrum mercury (Hg) resistance operons (mer) are present on the chromosome of the soil Alphaproteobacteria Xanthobacter autotrophicus Py2. These operons, mer1 and mer2, contain two features which are commonly found in mer operons in the genomes of soil and marine Alphaproteobacteria, but are not present in previously characterized mer operons: a gene for the mercuric reductase (MerA) that encodes an alkylmercury lyase domain typical of those found on the MerB protein, and the presence of an additional gene, which we are calling merK, with homology to glutathione reductase. Here, we demonstrate that Py2 is resistant to 0.2 μM inorganic mercury [Hg(II)] and 0.05 μM methylmercury (MeHg). Py2 is capable of converting MeHg and Hg(II) to elemental mercury [Hg(0)], and reduction of Hg(II) is induced by incubation in sub toxic concentrations of Hg(II). Transcription of the merA genes increased with Hg(II) treatment, and in both operons merK resides on the same polycistronic mRNA as merA. We propose the use of Py2 as a model system for studying the contribution of mer to Hg mobility in soil and marine ecosystems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG 1
FIG 1
Arrangement of potential mer operons in Xanthobacter autotrophicus Py2. R, merR; T, merT; P, merP; A, merA; K, potential glutathione reductase. Locus tags are indicated above the genes.
FIG 2
FIG 2
MICs of Hg(II) and MeHg in Py2. (A) Hg(II) MICs. The 0 and 0.1 μM Hg(II) growth curves are overlapping. (B) MeHg MICs. The 0, 0.02, and 0.05 μM MeHg growth curves overlap. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the means from three independent cultures.
FIG 3
FIG 3
Loss of Hg(II) in the presence of Py2. (A) Loss of Hg(II) by growing cultures of Py2. (B) Loss of Hg(II) by Py2 suspended in buffer. Pretreated cells were exposed to 0.02 μM Hg(II) in growth media for 1 h prior to the assay. Mock treated cells were incubated for 1 h in media with no Hg(II).
FIG 4
FIG 4
Capture of Hg(0) in Py2 cultures exposed to Hg(II) or MeHg. (A) Data from experiments conducted with Hg(II). (B) Data from experiments conducted with MeHg. Gray bars represent Hg present in the reaction vessel, and white bars represent Hg present in the trapping solution. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the means for three independent reactors and traps.
FIG 5
FIG 5
Gel electrophoresis of reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) products from intragenic regions of the Py2 mer operon. Three independent cultures (1, 2, and 3) were split into two aliquots, one of which (Hg) was exposed to 0.1 μM Hg(II) and one of which was not exposed Hg(II) (No Hg). After preparing mRNA, half of each sample was treated with reverse transcriptase (RT), and half was not (No-RT). gDNA indicates the use of Py2 genomic DNA as a template.
FIG 6
FIG 6
Gel electrophoresis of RT-PCR products from intergenic regions the Py2 mer operon. (A) Intergenic region between merA1 and merK1. (B) Intergenic region between merA2 and merK2. The template cDNA and no-RT samples were identical to the Hg(II)-exposed samples in Fig. 6. gDNA indicates the use of Py2 genomic DNA as a template. The rightmost lane is the 2-log ladder from New England BioLabs.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gabriel MC, Williamson DG. 2004. Principal biogeochemical factors affecting the speciation and transport of mercury through the terrestrial environment. Environ Geochem Health 26:421–434. doi:10.1007/s10653-004-1308-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mergler D, Anderson HA, Chan LHM, Mahaffey KR, Murray M, Sakamoto M, Stern AH. 2007. Methylmercury exposure and health effects in humans: a worldwide concern. AMBIO 36:3–11. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[3:MEAHEI]2.0.CO;2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ullrich SM, Tanton TW, Abdrashitova SA. 2001. Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 31:241–293. doi:10.1080/20016491089226. - DOI
    1. Roman HA, Walsh TL, Coull BA, Dewailly È Guallar E, Hattis D, Mariën K, Schwartz J, Stern AH, Virtanen JK, Rice G. 2011. Evaluation of the cardiovascular effects of methylmercury exposures: current evidence supports development of a dose-response function for regulatory benefits analysis. Environ Health Perspect 119:607–614. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Trasande L, Landrigan PJ, Schechter C. 2005. Public health and economic consequences of methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain. Environ Health Perspect 113:607–614. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003012. - DOI - PMC - PubMed