title: Disclosure of the differences of Mesorhizobium loti under the free-living and symbiotic conditions by comparative proteome analysis without bacteroid isolation.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Rhizobia are symbiotic nitrogen-fixing soil bacteria that show a symbiotic relationship with their host legume. Rhizobia have 2 different physiological conditions: a free-living condition in soil, and a symbiotic nitrogen-fixing condition in the nodule. The lifestyle of rhizobia remains largely unknown, although genome and transcriptome analyses have been carried out. To clarify the lifestyle of bacteria, proteome analysis is necessary because the protein profile directly reflects in vivo reactions of the organisms. In proteome analysis, high separation performance is required to analyze complex biological samples. Therefore, we used a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry system, equipped with a long monolithic silica capillary column, which is superior to conventional columns. In this study, we compared the protein profile of Mesorhizobium loti MAFF303099 under free-living condition to that of symbiotic conditions by using small amounts of crude extracts.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified 1,533 and 847 proteins for M. loti under free-living and symbiotic conditions, respectively. Pathway analysis by Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) revealed that many of the enzymes involved in the central carbon metabolic pathway were commonly detected under both conditions. The proteins encoded in the symbiosis island, the transmissible chromosomal region that includes the genes that are highly upregulated under the symbiotic condition, were uniquely detected under the symbiotic condition. The features of the symbiotic condition that have been reported by transcriptome analysis were confirmed at the protein level by proteome analysis. In addition, the genes of the proteins involved in cell surface structure were repressed under the symbiotic nitrogen-fixing condition. Furthermore, farnesyl pyrophosphate (FPP) was found to be biosynthesized only in rhizobia under the symbiotic condition.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The obtained protein profile appeared to reflect the difference in phenotypes under the free-living and symbiotic conditions. In addition, KEGG pathway analysis revealed that the cell surface structure of rhizobia was largely different under each condition, and surprisingly, rhizobia might provided FPP to the host as a source of secondary metabolism. M. loti changed its metabolism and cell surface structure in accordance with the surrounding conditions.
authors.affiliation: Division of Applied Life Sciences, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan.
authors.forename: Yohei
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Tatsukami
authors.forename: Mami
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nambu
authors.forename: Hironobu
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Morisaka
authors.forename: Kouichi
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kuroda
authors.forename: Mitsuyoshi
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ueda
mesh_terms: D001426:Bacterial Proteins / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism; D000070116:Lotus / Q000382:microbiology* / Q000502:physiology; D013058:Mass Spectrometry; D059128:Mesorhizobium / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology*; D009586:Nitrogen Fixation; D018517:Plant Roots / Q000382:microbiology; D020543:Proteome / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism; D013559:Symbiosis
chemical_list: D001426:Bacterial Proteins; D020543:Proteome
references.citation: Proteomics. 2006 May;6(10):3008-28
references.pmid: 16688787
references.citation: J Gen Microbiol. 1974 Sep;84(1):188-98
references.pmid: 4612098
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 2010 Mar;192(6):1719-29
references.pmid: 20081032
references.citation: Annu Rev Microbiol. 2002;56:289-314
references.pmid: 12142488
references.citation: DNA Res. 2000 Dec 31;7(6):381-406
references.pmid: 11214974
references.citation: Proteomics. 2010 Apr;10(7):1391-400
references.pmid: 20104621
references.citation: Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:519-46
references.pmid: 18444906
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2011 May;35(3):425-40
references.pmid: 21054445
references.citation: Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2010 Jun;23(6):784-90
references.pmid: 20459317
references.citation: Annu Rev Genet. 2008;42:413-41
references.pmid: 18983260
references.citation: Plant Cell Physiol. 2010 Sep;51(9):1381-97
references.pmid: 20660226
references.citation: AMB Express. 2012 Jul 29;2(1):37
references.pmid: 22839966
references.citation: BMC Microbiol. 2010 Mar 06;10:71
references.pmid: 20205931
references.citation: Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2007 Jul;20(7):843-56
references.pmid: 17601171
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 2004 Apr;186(8):2439-48
references.pmid: 15060047
references.citation: J Biotechnol. 2009 Mar 10;140(1-2):51-8
references.pmid: 19095018
references.citation: J Chromatogr A. 2002 Jun 28;961(1):53-63
references.pmid: 12186391
references.citation: Plant Cell. 1995 Jul;7(7):1015-26
references.pmid: 7640522
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 2003 Sep;185(17):5029-36
references.pmid: 12923075
references.citation: Trends Microbiol. 2009 Oct;17(10):458-66
references.pmid: 19766492
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Mar 13;422(6928):193-7
references.pmid: 12634792
references.citation: Anal Chem. 2010 Apr 1;82(7):2616-20
references.pmid: 20222674
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1989 Jan;171(1):569-72
references.pmid: 2914856
references.citation: Mol Microbiol. 2003 Aug;49(3):571-80
references.pmid: 12914007
references.citation: Trends Microbiol. 2006 Apr;14(4):161-8
references.pmid: 16520035
references.citation: Proteomics. 2011 Aug;11(15):3086-105
references.pmid: 21548095
references.citation: Annu Rev Biochem. 1996;65:503-35
references.pmid: 8811188
references.citation: Proteomics. 2004 Jul;4(7):1859-72
references.pmid: 15221743
references.citation: Proteomics. 2005 Nov;5(16):4170-84
references.pmid: 16254929
references.citation: Pathog Dis. 2013 Feb;67(1):67-75
references.pmid: 23620121
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2007 Jul;144(3):1495-507
references.pmid: 17545507
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 2005 Dec;187(23):7931-44
references.pmid: 16291666
references.citation: DNA Res. 2008 Aug;15(4):227-39
references.pmid: 18511435
references.citation: Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2003 Dec;67(12):2668-73
references.pmid: 14730152
references.citation: New Phytol. 1988 Feb;108(2):211-218
references.pmid: 33874168