Xylose uptake by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium

12Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Selenomonas ruminantium HD4 does not use the phosphoenolpyruvate phosphotransferase system to transport xylose (S.A. Martin and J.B. Russell, J. Gen. Microbiol. 134:819-827, 1988). Xylose uptake by whole cells of S. ruminantium HD4 was inducible. Uptake was unaffected by monensin or lasalocid, while oxygen, 0-phenanthroline, and HgCl2 were potent inhibitors. Menadione, antimycin A, and KCN had little effect on uptake, and acriflavine inhibited uptake by 23%. Sodium fluoride decreased xylose uptake by 10%, while N,N'-dicyclohexylcarbodiimide decreased uptake by 31%. Sodium arsenate was a strong inhibitor (83%), and these results suggest the involvement of a high-energy phosphate compound and possibly a binding protein in xylose uptake. The protonophores carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone, 2,4-dinitrophenol, and SF6847 inhibited xylose uptake by 88, 82, and 43%, respectively. The cations Na+ and K+ did not stimulate xylose uptake. The kinetics of xylose uptake were nonlinear, and it appeared that more than one uptake mechanism may be involved or that two proteins (i.e., a binding protein and permease protein) with different affinities for xylose were present. Excess (10 mM) glucose, sucrose, or maltose decreased xylose uptake <40%. Uptake was unaffected at extracellular pH values between 6.09 and 8.0, while pH values of 5.0 and 4.0 decreased uptake 28 and 24%, respectively. The phenolic monomers p-coumaric acid and vanillin inhibited growth on xylose and xylose uptake more than ferulic acid did. The predominant end products resulting from the fermentation of xylose were lactate (7.5 mM), acetate (4.4 mM), and propionate (5.1 mM), and the Y(XYLOSE) was 24.1 g/mol.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Williams, D. K., & Martin, S. A. (1990). Xylose uptake by the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56(6), 1683–1688. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.56.6.1683-1688.1990

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free