Article

The archaeal cell envelope.

Molecular Biology of Archaea, Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse 10, D-35043 Marburg, Germany.
Nature Reviews Microbiology (Impact Factor: 23.32). 06/2011; 9(6):414-26. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2576
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT At first glance, archaea and bacteria look alike; however, the composition of the archaeal cell envelope is fundamentally different from the bacterial cell envelope. With just one exception, all archaea characterized to date have only a single membrane and most are covered by a paracrystalline protein layer. This Review discusses our current knowledge of the composition of the archaeal cell surface. We describe the wide range of cell wall polymers, O- and N-glycosylated extracellular proteins and other cell surface structures that archaea use to interact with their environment.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Sonja-Verena Albers, Nov 11, 2014
9 Followers
 · 
290 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The mechanical and adhesive properties as well as the turgor pressure of microbes play an important role in cell growth and aggregation. By applying AFM together with finite element modelling, one can determine the cell wall structural homogeneity, mechanical and cell-to-cell adhesive properties for aggregated Methanosarcina barkeri cells. This also allows a novel approach to determine in-aggregate turgor pressure determination. Analyzing the AFM force-indentation response of the aggregates under loads less than 10 nN, our study reveals structural inhomogeneity of the polymeric part of the cell wall material and suggests that the cell wall consists of two layers of methanochondroitin (external: with a thickness of 3 ± 1 nm and internal: with a thickness of 169 ± 30 nm). On average, the hyperelastic finite element model showed that the internal layer is more rigid (μ = 14 ± 4 MPa) than the external layer (μ = 2.8 ± 0.9 MPa). To determine the turgor pressure and adhesiveness of the cells, a specific mode of indentation (under a load of 45 nN), aimed towards the centre of the individual aggregate, was performed. By modelling the AFM induced decohesion of the aggregate, the turgor pressure and the cell-to-cell adhesive interface properties could be determined. On average, the turgor pressure is estimated to be 59 ± 22kPa, the interface strength is 78 ± 12 kPa and the polymer network extensibility is 2.8 ± 0.9 nm. We predict that internal cell wall comprised highly compressed methanochondroitin chains and we are able to identify a conceptual model for stress dependent inner cell wall growth.
    Colloids and surfaces B: Biointerfaces 02/2015; 126:303-312. DOI:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.12.035 · 4.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: a b s t r a c t Archaeal and bacterial glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraether lipids (GDGTs) are used in various proxies, such as TEX 86 and the BIT index. In living organism, they contain polar head groups (intact polar lipids – IPLs). IPL GDGTs have also been detected in ancient marine sediments and it is unclear whether or not they are fossil entities or are part of living cells. In order to determine the extent of degradation of IPL GDGTs over geological timescales, we analyzed turbidite deposits, which had been partly reoxidized for several kyr after deposition on the Madeira Abyssal Plain. Analysis of core lipid (CL) and IPL-derived GDGTs showed a reduction in concentration by two orders of magnitude upon post-depositional oxidation, while IPL GDGTs with a mono-or dihexose head group decreased by 2–3 orders of magnitude. The BIT index for CL-and IPL-derived GDGTs increased substantially upon oxidation from 0.1 to up to 0.5. Together with changing MBT/CBT values, this indicates preferential preservation of soil-derived branched GDGTs over marine isoprenoid GDGTs, combined with in situ production of branched GDGTs in the sediment. The TEX 86 value for IPL-derived GDGTs decreased by 0.07 upon oxidation, while that of CL GDGTs showed no significant change. Isolation of IPLs revealed that the TEX 86 value for monohexose GDGTs was 0.55, while the that for dihexose GDGTs was substantially higher, 0.70. Thus, the decrease in TEX 86 for IPL-derived GDGTs was in agreement with the dominance of monohexose GDGTs in the oxidized turbidite, probably caused by a combination of in situ production as well as selective preservation of terrestrial iso-prenoid GDGTs. Due to the low amount of IPL GDGTs vs. CL GDGTs, the impact of IPL degradation on CL-based TEX 86 paleotemperature estimates was negligible.
    Organic Geochemistry 12/2013; 65:83-93. DOI:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2013.10.004 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Saturated fatty acids (SFAs) are known to suppress ruminal methanogenesis, but the underlying mechanisms are not well known. In the present study, inhibition of methane formation, cell membrane permeability (potassium efflux), and survival rate (LIVE/DEAD staining) of pure ruminal Methanobrevibacter ruminantium (DSM 1093) cell suspensions were tested for a number of SFAs. Methane production rate was not influenced by low concentrations of lauric (C12; 1 μ g/mL), myristic (C14; 1 and 5 μ g/mL), or palmitic (C16; 3 and 5 μ g/mL) acids, while higher concentrations were inhibitory. C12 and C14 were most inhibitory. Stearic acid (C18), tested at 10-80 μ g/mL and ineffective at 37°C, decreased methane production rate by half or more at 50°C and ≥50 μ g/mL. Potassium efflux was triggered by SFAs (C12 = C14 > C16 > C18 = control), corroborating data on methane inhibition. Moreover, the exposure to C12 and C14 decreased cell viability to close to zero, while 40% of control cells remained alive after 24 h. Generally, tested SFAs inhibited methanogenesis, increased cell membrane permeability, and decreased survival of M. ruminantium in a dose- and time-dependent way. These results give new insights into how the methane suppressing effect of SFAs could be mediated in methanogens.
    Archaea 04/2013; 2013:106916. DOI:10.1155/2013/106916 · 2.03 Impact Factor