Sulfur Isotope Effects of Dissimilatory Sulfite Reductase. 2015

William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard UniversityCambridge, MA, USA; Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington University in St. LouisSt. Louis, MO, USA.

The precise interpretation of environmental sulfur isotope records requires a quantitative understanding of the biochemical controls on sulfur isotope fractionation by the principle isotope-fractionating process within the S cycle, microbial sulfate reduction (MSR). Here we provide the only direct observation of the major ((34)S/(32)S) and minor ((33)S/(32)S, (36)S/(32)S) sulfur isotope fractionations imparted by a central enzyme in the energy metabolism of sulfate reducers, dissimilatory sulfite reductase (DsrAB). Results from in vitro sulfite reduction experiments allow us to calculate the in vitro DsrAB isotope effect in (34)S/(32)S (hereafter, [Formula: see text]) to be 15.3 ± 2‰, 2σ. The accompanying minor isotope effect in (33)S, described as [Formula: see text], is calculated to be 0.5150 ± 0.0012, 2σ. These observations facilitate a rigorous evaluation of the isotopic fractionation associated with the dissimilatory MSR pathway, as well as of the environmental variables that govern the overall magnitude of fractionation by natural communities of sulfate reducers. The isotope effect induced by DsrAB upon sulfite reduction is a factor of 0.3-0.6 times prior indirect estimates, which have ranged from 25 to 53‰ in (34)εDsrAB. The minor isotope fractionation observed from DsrAB is consistent with a kinetic or equilibrium effect. Our in vitro constraints on the magnitude of [Formula: see text] is similar to the median value of experimental observations compiled from all known published work, where (34)ε r-p = 16.1‰ (r-p indicates reactant vs. product, n = 648). This value closely matches those of MSR operating at high sulfate reduction rates in both laboratory chemostat experiments ([Formula: see text] 17.3 ± 1.5‰, 2σ) and in modern marine sediments ([Formula: see text] 17.3 ± 3.8‰). Targeting the direct isotopic consequences of a specific enzymatic processes is a fundamental step toward a biochemical foundation for reinterpreting the biogeochemical and geobiological sulfur isotope records in modern and ancient environments.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries

Related Publications

William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
April 2011, Microbiology (Reading, England),
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
February 2009, Environmental microbiology,
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
January 2010, Microbes and environments,
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
March 2005, Journal of bacteriology,
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
June 2022, Proteins,
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
January 1994, Methods in enzymology,
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
October 2010, Biochemistry,
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
January 1994, Methods in enzymology,
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
December 1985, Journal of biochemistry,
William D Leavitt, and Alexander S Bradley, and André A Santos, and Inês A C Pereira, and David T Johnston
June 2008, Journal of molecular biology,
Copied contents to your clipboard!