Conceived and designed the experiments: IQ MCB. Performed the experiments: CD CG. Analyzed the data: CD VM IQ MCB. Wrote the paper: CD PL VM IQ MCB.
This genome-scale study analysed the various parameters influencing protein levels in cells. To achieve this goal, the model bacterium
This work is in the field of systems biology. Via an in-depth comparison of proteomic and transcriptomic data in various culture conditions, our objective was to better understand the regulation of protein levels. We have demonstrated that bacteria exert a tight control on intracellular protein levels, through a multi-level regulation involving translation but also dilution due to growth and protein degradation. We have estimated translational efficiencies and protein degradation rates by modeling. These two biological parameters are extremely difficult to measure experimentally and have not been previously determined in bacteria. We have found that they are growth rate dependent, indicating a fine control of translation and degradation processes. We have worked with the small genome bacterium
In the era of “omics”, systems biology has emerged with the availability of genome-wide data from different levels,
The aim of this study was to analyse the control of intracellular protein level taking into account all the parameters of this control, in a prokaryotic organism, the model of lactic acid bacteria,
| + | Proteins significantly over-expressed in response to growth rate increase | − | Proteins significantly under-expressed in response to growth rate increase | |
|
|
0.24 h−1/0.09 h−1 | 0.47 h−1/0.09 h−1 | 0.24 h−1/0.09 h−1 | 0.47 h−1/0.09 h−1 |
|
|
AroH1.60, IlvA1.66, IlvD1.61, LeuA1.92, LeuD2.20, SerB1.50 | AroE1.16, IlvD1.43, ThrC1.13 | AspB0.74, GlnA0.25, LysA0.48, ProA0.81 | AspC0.57 |
|
|
CobQ2.26, IspB1.82 | IspB1.69 | DfpA0.42, GshR0.59 | DfpA0.44 |
|
|
MurC1.42, MurD1.49 | MurC1.68 | MurE0.36 | |
|
|
DnaK1.35, FtsZ1.83, SodA1.44 | FtsY1.64, GroEL1.59 | AhpC0.77, SecA0.70 | SecA0.70 |
|
|
GlmS1.94, MetK1.23 | MetK1.28 | GlgD0.53 | |
|
|
ArcC21.51, CitC1.54, DxsB1.27, Glk1.99, GpdA1.38, Mae1.49, NdrI2.32, Pyk1.44, TpiA1.47, YpjF1.56, YpjH2.19 | CitE1.20, EnoB1.45, GpdA1.41, Mae1.04, Pmg1.14, TpiA1.52 | AckA20.37, ArcA0.28, CitF0.60, NifS0.62, PdhA0.56, PdhB0.72, PdhC0.44, Pfl0.58, RpiA0.78, YpdB0.50, YpdC0.49, YpdD0.57, YrcA0.51, YrjC0.39 | AckA20.32, AldC0.73, ArcT0.65, GadB0.73, GalE0.98, PdhA0.78, PdhB0.71, PdhC0.38, Pfl0.93, Pgk0.85, PycA0.57, ScrK0.78, YbiE0.79, YpdB0.58, YpdD0.51, YrbA0.73, YrcA0.50 |
|
|
AccA2.50, AccD1.82, FabD2.45, FabH1.47, HmcM1.61, YdiD2.07 | FabF1.01, FabG11.16, FabH1.54, FabZ11.06, ThiL1.69 | PlsX0.67 | YscE0.86 |
|
|
Adk1.46, Apt2.40, GuaC2.43, Hpt1.34, NrdE1.57, PyrC1.31, PyrE1.77, RmlA1.71, RmlB1.14 | Add1.49, Apt2.84, GuaA1.52, Hpt1.31, PydA1.18, PyrC1.42, RmlB1.29 | Pdp0.80, PurB0.47 | DeoB0.92, PurB0.38, Upp0.80 |
|
|
LlrC1.33, ObgL1.44, PurR1.17, PyrR1.67 | ObgL1.28 | CcpA0.87, EraL0.57, FhuR0.75 | EraL0.61, FhuR0.81, LlrA0.81, YsxL0.88 |
|
|
SsbB1.64 | HslA0.67, ParC0.34 | HslA0.63, ParC0.34 | |
|
|
GreA1.17, NusA1.28 | QueA1.31, RpoA1.08 | - | - |
|
|
Frr1.54, LeuS1.66, PpiB1.79, PrfA1.48, RplE1.38, RplJ2.81, RplM1.23, RplN1.34, RpmE1.07, RpsA1.20, RpsF1.45, RpsT1.19, SerS1.27, TrpS1.77, Tsf1.16, Tuf1.11, TyrS1.45 | FusA1.37, GatA1.35, GatB1.35, RplE1.40, RplK1.07, Tsf1.26 | ArgS0.55, GltX0.62, PepP0.19, ProS0.68, RplA0.73, SerS0.74 | ArgS0.84, KsgA0.24, LeuS0.79, LysS0.42, PrfC0.63, RplI0.75, RpsB0.60 |
|
|
GlnQ1.20, OptD1.71, PtsI1.57, PtsK1.38, YsfB1.30 | GlnQ1.19, OptD1.80, PtsI1.94, YjgE1.44, YsfB1.39 | BusAA0.30, PtsH0.71 | BusAA0.22, PtsH0.70 |
|
|
ClpC0.25, CspE0.62, Pi1020.74, Pi1250.47 | CspE0.66, DpsA0.85, Pi1020.63, Tpx0.67 | ||
|
|
YbdD1.70, YciC1.22, YcjB1.60, YejH1.20, YjgF1.37, YjhD1.28, YraB1.88, YshC1.66, YtfB1.48, YtjH1.28, YuhE2.32 | YbdD1.48, YcjB1.54, YgbD1.17, YjgF1.33, YjhD1.24, YlaC1.17, YnhC1.26, YraB1.79 | YahB0.60, YgdA0.46, YhjA0.27, YlaF0.76, YnfC0.32, YpdB0.50, YpdC0.49, YpdD0.57, YrjD0.49, YtgH0.47, YtjA0.76, YtjH0.75, YwcC0.37, YxbE0.23 | YahB0.61, YcdB0.58, YeiJ0.68, YgdA0.51, YgiI0.25, YgiK0.33, YiiH0.56, YkhD0.84, YpdB0.58 YpdD0.51, YqfE0.77, YseF0.93, YtaA0.81 |
Protein expression ratios are indicated as exponent.
Proteome profiles differed between the various stress-related proteins. On one hand, the two chaperones DnaK and GroEL, the superoxide dismutase associated to oxygen stress SodA, and DpsA, were found in higher quantity, while on the other hand, the cold shock associated protein CspE, ClpC and the adaptation related peroxidase Tpx, had decreased levels in response to growth rate increase. Besides those opposite punctual regulations, other proteins encoding important functions involved in stress protection such as ATPases or peptidases (excepting PepP), were present at constant levels, independently of the growth rate. This lack of general tendency observed here at proteomic level was also observed at transcriptomic level
Transcriptomic and proteomic analyses were performed with cells collected simultaneously from the same fermentor; thus data can be strictly compared. Proteins and their corresponding transcript levels were compared individually. Transcriptomic data were already available
Protein concentrations (A), mRNA concentrations (B), mRNA/protein ratios (C) and their ratios between two different growth conditions (D) ranked in increasing order.
What normally occurs in bacterial cells is the transcription of genes into mRNA, which are then translated into proteins that can be either diluted by growth or degraded (
Translation, dilution and degradation rates expressed respectively by k′[mRNA]), μ[protein] and k″[protein] where k′ is the translation efficiency, μ the growth rate and k″ the degradation rate constant.
Rates of mRNA translation or protein degradation/dilution are assumed to be not constant and related to mRNA or protein concentration respectively. Biological rates were expressed as first order kinetics of their substrate concentration as previously postulated in
In the chemostat cultures at the various growth rates, cells are at steady state; similarly, during the exponential growth phase, cells are physiologically stable and are also considered to be at steady-state
The mRNA/protein ratios were thus linked to the growth rate (μ) through a polynomial function of order two (μ2), which is consistent with the visual observation of the various curves (not shown). For each mRNA–protein couple the reliability of the two estimated constants α and β was evaluated by their associated R2. All regression coefficients are listed in
| k″ = β | k″ = β*μ | k″ = β/μ | |
| k′ = α | 1.80E+08+/−1.21E+08 | 2.06E+08+/−1.24E+08 | 1.79E+08+/−1.21E+08 |
|
|
|
|
|
| k′ = α*μ | 7.13E+08+/−4.21E+08 | 7.14E+08+/−4.21E+08 | 7.12E+08+/−4.21E+08 |
|
|
|
|
|
| k′ = α/μ | 7.80E+07+/−4.15E+07 | 1.13E+08+/−5.28E+07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Transcriptomic data were expressed as mRNA concentrations and abundances (data in italic). The lowest mean sum of squared residuals, revealing the solution that best fits, is indicated in bold.
| Protein and Functional category | α | β | R2 |
|
|
|||
| AROH | 4.51151E-05 | 0.1646825 | 0.97121488 |
| GLTD | 1.85762E-05 | 0.00241775 | 0.97233168 |
| GLYA | 4.22229E-05 | 0.01354879 | 0.93404229 |
|
|
|
|
|
| ILVD | 7.93403E-05 | 0 | 0.93524863 |
|
|
|
|
|
| THRC | 0.000284821 | 0.29820117 | 0.98839848 |
|
|
|||
| AHPC | 5.10745E-05 | 0 | 0.97664571 |
| DNAK | 0.001061111 | 0.35860785 | 0.93348064 |
| FTSA | 4.56985E-05 | 0.05202765 | 0.9606819 |
| FTSZ | 5.8834E-05 | 0.00130416 | 0.92637554 |
| SECA | 2.17858E-05 | 0 | 0.97642785 |
| SODA | 0.0001363 | 0.1338211 | 0.97950777 |
| TIG | 0.001348633 | 0.2948733 | 0.98174986 |
|
|
|||
| MENB | 2.73156E-05 | 0 | 0.93563899 |
| NADE | 0.000116486 | 0.15449175 | 0.99604123 |
| TRXB1 | 8.19857E-05 | 0 | 0.96026851 |
|
|
|||
| DDL | 8.25457E-05 | 0.11519472 | 0.96225747 |
| GLMU | 7.37934E-05 | 0.09190161 | 0.99637455 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MURF | 2.2806E-05 | 0 | 0.93893948 |
|
|
|||
| ACCC | 2.58433E-05 | 0.00441038 | 0.95136582 |
| FABF | 0.000184132 | 0.11832197 | 0.96441487 |
| FABG1 | 0.007749352 | 19.3686308 | 0.00359184 |
| FABZ1 | 0.00099817 | 1.03586823 | 0.8424436 |
| HMCM | 4.85365E-05 | 0.1262591 | 0.91591656 |
| LPLL | 6.97982E-05 | 0.32322579 | 0.90681314 |
| THIL | 4.11396E-06 | 0 | 0.92850481 |
|
|
|||
| GLMS | 0.000107736 | 0.58029666 | 0.70310455 |
| METK | 3.24175E-05 | 0.08257955 | 0.99050511 |
|
|
|||
| ACKA1 | 7.48258E-05 | 0.10443145 | 0.98553347 |
| ACKA2 | 3.87311E-05 | 0.00463101 | 0.96562819 |
| ALS | 3.63408E-05 | 0.1298218 | 0.99148164 |
| ARAT | 1.02213E-05 | 0.17625044 | 0.98935052 |
| BCAT | 0.000106471 | 0.19579547 | 0.98752533 |
| CITE | 0.000631153 | 1.91842211 | 0.33567603 |
| CITF | 0.000141916 | 0.21345432 | 0.89438864 |
| DXSB | 2.22939E-05 | 0.01305167 | 0.96347158 |
| ENOA | 0.001448014 | 0.50011755 | 0.9812687 |
| FBAA | 0.001567707 | 0.58952655 | 0.92631253 |
| GALE | 1.51579E-05 | 0.08891695 | 0.96369781 |
| GAPA | 6.96015E-05 | 0.01558052 | 0.98304437 |
| GAPB | 0.005918802 | 0.34027767 | 0.95321111 |
|
|
|
|
|
| GPDA | 2.89337E-05 | 0.01358186 | 0.95337614 |
| LDH | 0.001985093 | 0.19145278 | 0.99659282 |
| MAE | 0.000203098 | 0.11729054 | 0.94812409 |
| NIFS | 0.000102282 | 0.2123659 | 0.94633073 |
| PDHA | 0.000208532 | 0.07344591 | 0.99091991 |
| PDHB | 4.80055E-05 | 0.16285919 | 0.99397297 |
| PDHD | 0.0001525 | 0.10948091 | 0.99214624 |
| PFL | 6.25985E-05 | 0.08619004 | 0.99383945 |
| PGK | 0.000724945 | 0.18072841 | 0.99732793 |
| PMG | 0.00120216 | 0.52424582 | 0.95549172 |
|
|
|
|
|
| PYK | 0.001608755 | 0.27146917 | 0.99772835 |
| TKT | 0.000162636 | 0.24758748 | 0.98112816 |
| TPIA | 0.001187986 | 0.562022 | 0.99194516 |
| YPDB | 0.000110296 | 0.17219254 | 0.93840544 |
| YPDD | 0.000120767 | 0.06394114 | 0.99533841 |
| YPJH | 2.02435E-05 | 0 | 0.90640904 |
|
|
|
|
|
| YRCA | 4.99377E-05 | 0.2788185 | 0.95535145 |
| ZWF | 0.000467917 | 0.33052248 | 0.99925746 |
|
|
|||
| CLPB | 4.1254E-05 | 0.11738861 | 0.99444661 |
| CLPE | 1.97662E-05 | 0 | 0.95854444 |
|
|
|
|
|
| DPSA | 0.000339167 | 0.14740893 | 0.99853144 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GUAA | 0.000155463 | 0.23586297 | 0.96859337 |
| HPT | 0.000108095 | 0.49984413 | 0.99936199 |
| PDP | 2.47401E-05 | 0.02445447 | 0.96991137 |
| PRSB | 0.000112449 | 0.15467248 | 0.91947476 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PYRC | 8.87977E-05 | 0.28528728 | 0.93021038 |
|
|
|
|
|
| PYRH | 6.38656E-06 | 0.0322555 | 0.95142351 |
| RMLA | 6.81773E-05 | 0.32316896 | 0.93695889 |
|
|
|
|
|
| RMLC | 1.28376E-05 | 0.03849101 | 0.98656712 |
| THYA | 5.59309E-06 | 0 | 0.95171946 |
|
|
|||
| CCPA | 0.000406211 | 0.12171163 | 0.96201171 |
| CODY | 8.46992E-05 | 0.13250482 | 0.98384633 |
| LLRA | 4.62605E-05 | 0.52331337 | 0.92153533 |
|
|
|
|
|
| PURR | 0.000103485 | 0.03276367 | 0.94032578 |
|
|
|
|
|
| TYPA | 0.000229966 | 0.69467632 | 0.90710663 |
|
|
|||
| DNAN | 0.00066181 | 0.27185813 | 0.99667727 |
| HSLA | 0.003874397 | 0.14399314 | 0.98785442 |
|
|
|
|
|
| RECA | 0.000347948 | 0.29995273 | 0.97437563 |
| SSBB | 4.73141E-05 | 0.06933065 | 0.96506692 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
| ASPS | 0.000293319 | 0.78275625 | 0.91713371 |
| DEF | 1.14893E-05 | 0.03005374 | 0.97404273 |
| FMT | 3.34181E-05 | 0 | 0.94159277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GATB | 0.000154178 | 0.16452557 | 0.97872462 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PEPC | 2.36902E-05 | 0 | 0.92969273 |
| PEPDB | 0.000204376 | 0.2243337 | 0.99552578 |
|
|
|
|
|
| PEPO | 0.000147934 | 0.15508792 | 0.99642862 |
| PEPP | 1.72239E-05 | 0 | 0.91413837 |
|
|
|
|
|
| PEPV | 0.00071641 | 0.29661492 | 0.99715732 |
| PHET | 0.000187455 | 0.76933426 | 0.98165509 |
| PPIB | 4.99542E-05 | 0.24407188 | 0.97980974 |
|
|
|
|
|
| PRFC | 5.60905E-05 | 0.30692988 | 0.95144129 |
| PROS | 8.83818E-05 | 0.11998473 | 0.99431058 |
| RPLA | 0.001100954 | 0.29255803 | 0.93892795 |
|
|
|
|
|
| RPLF | 0.020868509 | 0.57572422 | 0.92991859 |
| RPLI | 0.00053669 | 0 | 0.96573657 |
|
|
|
|
|
| RPLK | 0.007187335 | 0.15914489 | 0.98448783 |
| RPLN | 0.002583908 | 0.42853325 | 0.9592895 |
| RPLQ | 0.000971518 | 0.16634258 | 0.99841319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RPSC | 0.000377121 | 0 | 0.95023628 |
| RPSD | 0.000400639 | 0.00974974 | 0.99060528 |
|
|
|
|
|
| RPSF | 9.14703E-05 | 0.48098276 | 0.9965725 |
|
|
|
|
|
| RPSH | 0.000342902 | 0.17581565 | 0.98687861 |
| RPSJ | 0.000193424 | 0 | 0.95720261 |
| RPST | 0.001476284 | 0.3612539 | 0.97646346 |
|
|
|
|
|
| TRPS | 2.10306E-05 | 0 | 0.95229578 |
| TSF | 0.00086506 | 0.31609137 | 0.97370399 |
| TYRS | 0.001325453 | 0.49617209 | 0.94131316 |
|
|
|||
| GREA | 0.000177242 | 0.18909676 | 0.94390233 |
| NUSA | 0.000550647 | 0.23668226 | 0.97440049 |
|
|
|
|
|
| RPOA | 3.42628E-05 | 0.13144055 | 0.98711891 |
|
|
|||
| PTNAB | 0.000173226 | 0.13096684 | 0.97180887 |
|
|
|
|
|
| PTSI | 0.000457181 | 0.23653753 | 0.90691365 |
| PTSK | 4.97924E-05 | 0.00417517 | 0.95466442 |
| YAHG | 6.35546E-05 | 0.32396408 | 0.94254081 |
| YNGE | 4.06269E-05 | 0.02850911 | 0.955139 |
| YSFB | 4.93442E-05 | 0.14214495 | 0.96437898 |
|
|
|||
| YAHB | 3.18423E-05 | 0 | 0.97419179 |
| YBJJ | 1.86559E-05 | 0 | 0.92494911 |
| YCGE | 9.62931E-05 | 0.24684603 | 0.98565885 |
| YCIC | 0.000121264 | 0.33790758 | 0.97435427 |
| YDJD | 2.16629E-05 | 0.04413265 | 0.95721016 |
| YEIG | 5.2701E-06 | 0 | 0.92020873 |
| YNIH | 5.57972E-05 | 0.24822788 | 0.93523297 |
| YPDC | 2.62297E-05 | 0.05529531 | 0.97485946 |
| YRAB | 0.000214255 | 0.05292201 | 0.94877672 |
| YSEF | 1.45972E-05 | 0 | 0.97271095 |
| YTAA | 1.42892E-05 | 0 | 0.92865164 |
| YTDB | 4.44976E-05 | 0.12699478 | 0.99961866 |
| YTGG | 7.14082E-06 | 0.07061493 | 0.99826851 |
| YTGH | 1.26964E-05 | 0 | 0.92451445 |
| YTHC | 6.60287E-05 | 0 | 0.95043811 |
| YTJH | 4.18078E-05 | 0.23305714 | 0.98316698 |
| YUHE | 1.12397E-05 | 0 | 0.91482774 |
| YWCC | 0.000120121 | 0.04546948 | 0.9672213 |
| YWED | 1.52202E-05 | 0 | 0.92566783 |
α and β estimations and the determination coefficient (R2) are given for the 171 genes for which both transcriptomic and proteomic data were available. α and β are directly proportional to translation and degradation rates respectively (k′ = α/μ and k″ = β/μ). Proteins that do not match the selection criteria (R2≥0.90) are
The model (1) states that translation rate is proportional to the concentration of mRNA species which assumes that translation is mRNA-limited. An alternative hypothesis, would be the saturation of the ribosome with mRNA, as previously postulated in
In order to carry on our modeling approach, the data corresponding to mRNA concentrations were filtered and only couples with R2≥0.90 (130) were retained for further analyses (
The k′ and k″ coefficients were numerically calculated for each protein and in each growth condition from the values of α and β (
Histograms for translation efficiency, k′, (A) and protein degradation rate, k″, (B) with coloured bars (black for μ = 0.88 h−1, dark grey for μ = 0.47 h−1, grey for μ = 0.24 h−1 and white for μ = 0.09 h−1) and lines indicating the Gaussian tendency curves.
Due to the restricted size of the dataset but also to the non-uniform distribution of detected proteins in the various functional categories, it was not possible to use statistical tests to rigorously determine functional enrichments in extreme values of k′ or k″. However, among the 15 genes that are translated the most efficiently (highest α values in
Biological determinants of translation efficiency and protein stability were investigated through correlation studies. Correlations providing a Spearman coefficient (RSpearman) with associated p-values lower than 0.05 were considered as significant. The codon adaptation index (CAI) positively correlates with k′ (RSpearman = 0.57). Since CAI directly reflects translation efficiency during the elongation step
| Amino-acid | Mean usage frequency (%/protein) | Correlation with translation efficiency (RSpearman) | Correlation with degradation rate (RSpearman) |
| Cysteine | 0.5 | −0.29 | −0.19 |
| Tryptophan | 1.1 | ||
| Histidine | 1.8 | −0.22 | |
| Methionine | 2.6 | ||
| Proline | 3.0 | ||
| Tyrosine | 3.6 | −0.21 | |
| Glutamine | 3.6 | ||
| Arginine | 3.7 | ||
| Phenylalanine | 4.8 | ||
| Aspartic acid | 5.1 | −0.17 | |
| Asparagine | 5.1 | ||
| Threonine | 5.5 | ||
| Glycine | 6.2 | ||
| Serine | 6.4 | ||
| Valine | 6.5 | ||
| Alanine | 7.0 | 0.23 | |
| Glutamic acid | 7.1 | ||
| Isoleucine | 7.9 | −0.19 | |
| Lysine | 7.9 | 0.24 | |
| Leucine | 10 |
These correlations were independent of the growth rate. Significant RSpearman with p-value<0.05 are listed in the table.
Degradation and dilution by growth are both involved in protein disappearance and are competitive reactions. The degradation and dilution constants, k″ and μ, can be directly compared. The k″ is higher than μ at low growth rate but becomes lower after a critical value of 0.39 h−1 (
Comparison of growth rate (μ: straight line) and median value of the degradation constant (k″: dotted line).
More generally, variations in protein concentration between two conditions can be related to changes in the three rates: protein synthesis, degradation and dilution. In order to better understand this regulatory node and identify which are the major controls, the quantitative involvement of the different actors was analyzed. Regulation coefficients corresponding to the protein level control were estimated with a method based on the one developed on
The term
| Growth rates intervals | Translation control of protein levels | Disappearance control of protein levels | Shared control of protein level |
| 0.09–0.24 h−1 | 38% | 60% | 2% |
| 0.24–0.47 h−1 | 33% | 56% | 11% |
| 0.47–0.88 h−1 | 14% | 47% | 39% |
The comparison of mRNA and protein ratios revealed a strong heterogeneity among genes but also for a given gene, at different growth conditions. Variability among genes has recently been reported for the model yeast
The combination of two modeling approaches, one based on biological knowledge and the other on experimental data fitting, has enabled translation efficiency and protein degradation rate to be determined for each protein, phenomena which have been shown to be protein specific and growth rate dependant. The positive correlation of translation efficiency with codon bias in
Protein half-lives for the whole genome have never been determined nor estimated in any bacteria and data are only available in the literature for
Protein degradation exerts a major role in the cellular adaptation process since protein half-live data depend on the growth rate (1/μ function). Moreover, the degradation rate is even higher than dilution rate at low growth rate (
With this modeling approach, we have estimated translational efficiencies and protein degradation rates. These two biological parameters are extremely difficult to measure experimentally and have even never been previously determined in bacteria. The method was based on an in depth comparison of proteome and transcriptome data and was developed with the small genome bacterium
Transcriptomic data (geo platforms GSE10256
The total raw intensity of the membrane without any normalisation represents the amount of mRNA in the RNA sample used for transcriptomic analysis (10 µg). This total intensity was constant at each growth rate and lower than the saturation threshold (mean value of 1660±584, 1462±383, 1389±366, 1474±367, 1496±425 at μ = 0.09, 0.24, 0.47 and 0.88 h−1 respectively). Thus, it can be deduced that the ratio mRNA/total RNA was constant and assuming that ribosomal RNA is the major component of total RNA we can postulate that the fraction mRNA/ribosomal RNA is independent of the growth rate.
For each condition, three repetitions were performed with independent cultures, extractions and electrophoresis. Bacteria were harvested from the cultures and cell pellets were washed twice with ice-cold 200 mM Na-phosphate, pH 6.4 and re-suspended in 4 ml of 20 mM Na-phosphate buffer, pH 6.4, 1 mM EDTA, 10 mM tributylphosphine, a cocktail of protease inhibitors (P8465; Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO) 20-fold diluted and catalase 40 U/ml (C3155; Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO) to limit isoform formation. The cell suspension (approximately 35 units of optical density at 600 nm [OD600]/mL,) was transferred to the pre-cooled chamber of a BASIC Z cell disrupter (Celld, Warwickshire, United Kingdom) and was subjected to a pressure of 2,500 bars. The suspension was centrifuged at 5,000×
A volume of cytosolic fraction corresponding to 350 µg or 500 µg (for basic gels) of proteins was incubated with nuclease (benzonase, Novagen 70664-3; 25 U for 100 µL of cytosolic fraction) for 30 min at 37°C and then chilled on ice and precipitated with 75% (vol/vol) methanol. The protein pellet was resuspended in 500 µL (for pH 4.5–5.5 and 5–6 gels) or 100 µL (for pH 6–11 gels) of isoelectric focusing (IEF) buffer 1, consisting of 7 M urea, 2 M thiourea, 4% CHAPS{}, 100 mM dithiothreitol or 4 mM tributylphosphine and DeStreak (1.2% v/v, Amersham Biosciences, GE Healthcare) (for basic gels), and 0.5% pH 4.5 to 5.5 or 5 to 6 or 6 to 11 immobilized pH gradient (IPG) buffer (Amersham Biosciences, GE Healthcare). The sample was loaded on 24 cm pH 4.5 to 5.5 or 5 to 6 IPG strip (Amersham Biosciences, GE Healthcare) which was previously rehydrated at 50 V for 11 h. IEF was carried out for 65,000 V.h at a maximum of 8,000 V, using the Protean II IEF cell (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). Analysis of basic proteins was performed with 18 cm pH 6–11 IPG strip. After passive rehydration of the strip in buffer 1, the protein sample was loaded on sample cups and IEF was carried out for 20,000 V.h at a maximum of 3,500 V using the IPGphor device (Amersham Biosciences, GE Healthcare). Before the second dimension, IPG strips were incubated for 15 min with shaking in 150 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.8, 0.1% w/v SDS. The IPG strip was then positioned on sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gels, using 1% low-melting-point agarose in 150 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.8. Second-dimension electrophoresis was performed on 12% polyacrylamide gels (24 by 20 by 0.1 cm) in 25 mM Tris, 192 mM glycine, 0.1% sodium dodecyl sulfate, pH 8.3, using the Ettan-Dalt II apparatus. Electrophoresis was run at 1 W/gel for 16 h at 15°C. The gels were stained with BioSafe colloidal Coomassie blue (Bio-Rad) for 1 h and destained with three successive washes in deionized water.
Images files were recorded at 65536 gray levels (16 BitsPerPixel). Image manipulation and analysis were performed with Samespot V2 software (Nonlinear Dynamics). Protein abundances were given using arbitrary units which correspond to spot volumes and which were calculated as follows: spot area x spot pixel intensity - background intensity.
Protein identification was carried out at the PAPPSO platform (INRA, Jouy-en-Josas) using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MS). Protein spots were excised from Coomassie blue-stained gels and in-gel digested with trypsin. Gel pieces were placed in Eppendorf tubes and washed with 30 µL 25 mM ammonium carbonate, 50% acetonitrile. The supernatants were discarded and gel pieces were dried at 37°C for 15 min. The gels were rehydrated with 20 µL 50 mM ammonium carbonate containing 100 ng of porcine trypsin (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). The solutions were incubated overnight at 37°C. The supernatants containing peptides were directly analyzed by MALDI-TOF Mass spectrometry on a Voyager DE STR Instrument (Applied Biosystems, Framingham, CA, USA). The α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid matrix was prepared at 4 mg/mL in 0.1% TFA, 50% acetonitrile. An equal volume (1 µL) of matrix and sample were spotted onto the MALDI-TOF target plate. Spectra were acquired in the reflector mode with the following parameters: 2,000 laser intensity, 20 kV accelerating voltage, 62% grid voltage, 120 ns delay. The mass gates used were 840–3500 Da. Internal calibration was performed by using the trypsin peptides at 842.5 and 2,211.1 Da. Database searches were conducted with the MS-Fit software (
The few spots which could not be identified by MALDI-TOF were analysed by LC-MS/MS using an Ultimate 3000 LC system (Dionex, Voisins le Bretonneux, France) connected to a linear ion trap mass spectrometer (LTQ, Thermo Fisher, USA) by a nanoelectrospray interface to realize the separation, ionisation and fragmentation of peptides, respectively. The supernatant of trypsin hydrolysis was transferred to a new tube and the gel pieces were extracted with a) 25 µL of buffer B (50 mM ammonium carbonate) and b) two times buffer C (Formic acid 0.1% acetonitrile 50%). For each extraction, the gel pieces were incubated for 15 min at room temperature while shaking. The supernatants of each extraction were pooled with the original trypsin digest supernatants and dried for 2 h in a Speed-Vacuum concentrator. The peptides were then re-suspended in 25 µL of precolumn loading buffer (0.08% TFA and 2% ACN in water). LC-MS/MS analysis was performed on an Ultimate 3000 LC system (Dionex, Voisins le Bretonneux, France) connected to linear ion trap mass spectrometer (LTQ, Thermo Fisher, USA) by nanoelectrospray interface for separation, ionisation and fragmentation of all peptides. Four µL of tryptic peptide mixtures were loaded at flow rate 20 µL/min onto precolumn Pepmap C18 (0.3×5 mm, 100 Å, 3 µm; Dionex). After 4 min, the precolumn was connected with the separating nanocolumn Pepmap C18 (0.075×150 mm, 100 Å, 3 µm, Dionex) and the gradient was started at 300 nL/min. All peptides were separated on the nanocolumn using a linear gradient from 2 to 36% of buffer B, over 18 min. Eluting buffer A: 0.1% Formic acid, 2% acetonitrile and eluting buffer B: 0.1% Formic acid, 80% acetonitrile. Including the regeneration step, each run was 50 min in length. Ionization was performed on liquid junction with a spray voltage of 1.3 KV applied to non-coated capillary probe (PicoTip EMITER 10 µm ID; New Objective, USA). Peptides ions were analysed by the Nth-dependent method as follows: (i) full MS scan (m/z 300–2000), (ii) ZoomScan (scan of the 3 major ions), (iii) MS/MS on these 3 ions with classical peptides fragmentation parameter: Qz = 0.25, activation time = 30 ms, collision energy = 40%. Proteins identifications were performed with Bioworks 3.3 software. The raw data were converted and filtered in peak lists with default data generation parameters for LTQ mass spectrometer. All peak lists of precursor and fragment ions were matched automatically against a
Raw spot volumes were normalized by the mean intensity of the corresponding gel. A total of 542 spots corresponding to 352 different proteins were detected. Some of the spots corresponded to proteins mixture and were not considered. The intensities of spots corresponding to protein isoforms in a same gel were summed so as to represent the level of a single protein independently of post-transcriptional modifications. 15 proteins identified both on 4.5–5.5 and 5–6 pH ranges displayed very different amounts. We considered that the best protein level estimation was given by the highest signal.
Since total protein concentrations remain stable whatever the growth rate (42±6 g protein per 100 g cell dry weight), the abundance data are considered to be equivalent to concentrations. Ratios were calculated using the slowest growth phase as a reference. The statistical significance of ratios were evaluated using Student test and False Discovery Rates (FDR, calculated according to Benjamini-Hochberg method
R2 calculations and equations resolution were perform with MATLAB software.
Correlations were estimated using R free statistical software to calculate Spearman rank correlation coefficient and the associated p-value.
Transcriptomic and proteomic raw data and their corresponding standard deviation
(0.24 MB DOC)
Click here for additional data file.
Regulatory coefficients calculated between the different growth rates
(0.16 MB XLS)
Click here for additional data file.
We thank Nic Lindley for useful discussions.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
This work was supported by the INRA Integrative Biology Program (agroBI). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript)