Biosurfactants Produced by Phyllosphere-Colonizing Pseudomonads Impact Diesel Degradation but Not Colonization of Leaves of Gnotobiotic Arabidopsis thaliana.

Biosurfactant production is a common trait in leaf surface-colonizing bacteria that has been associated with increased survival and movement on leaves. At the same time, the ability to degrade aliphatics is common in biosurfactant-producing leaf colonizers. Pseudomonads are common leaf colonizers and have been recognized for their ability to produce biosurfactants and degrade aliphatic compounds. In this study, we investigated the role of biosurfactants in four non-plant-pathogenic Pseudomonas strains by performing a series of experiments to characterize their surfactant properties and their role during leaf colonization and diesel degradation. The biosurfactants produced were identified using mass spectrometry. Two strains produced viscosin-like biosurfactants, and the other two produced massetolide A-like biosurfactants, which aligned with the phylogenetic relatedness between the strains. To further investigate the role of surfactant production, random Tn5 transposon mutagenesis was performed to generate knockout mutants. The knockout mutants were compared to their respective wild types with regard to their ability to colonize gnotobiotic Arabidopsis thaliana and to degrade diesel or dodecane. It was not possible to detect negative effects during plant colonization in direct competition or individual colonization experiments. When grown on diesel, knockout mutants grew significantly slower than their respective wild types. When grown on dodecane, knockout mutants were less impacted than during growth on diesel. By adding isolated wild-type biosurfactants, it was possible to complement the growth of the knockout mutants.IMPORTANCE Many leaf-colonizing bacteria produce surfactants and are able to degrade aliphatic compounds; however, whether surfactant production provides a competitive advantage during leaf colonization is unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear if leaf colonizers take advantage of the aliphatic compounds that constitute the leaf cuticle and cuticular waxes. Here, we tested the effect of surfactant production on leaf colonization, and we demonstrate that the lack of surfactant production decreases the ability to degrade aliphatic compounds. This indicates that leaf surface-dwelling, surfactant-producing bacteria contribute to degradation of environmental hydrocarbons and may be able to utilize leaf surface waxes. This has implications for plant-microbe interactions and future studies.

Functional analysis of mutant and wild-type Drosophila origin recognition complex.

The origin recognition complex (ORC) is the DNA replication initiator protein in eukaryotes. We have reconstituted a functional recombinant Drosophila ORC and compared activities of the wild-type and several mutant ORC variants. Drosophila ORC is an ATPase, and our studies show that the ORC1 subunit is essential for ATP hydrolysis and for ATP-dependent DNA binding. Moreover, DNA binding by ORC reduces its ATP hydrolysis activity. In vitro, ORC binds to chromatin in an ATP-dependent manner, and this process depends on the functional AAA(+) nucleotide-binding domain of ORC1. Mutations in the ATP-binding domain of ORC1 are unable to support cell-free DNA replication. However, mutations in the putative ATP-binding domain of either the ORC4 or ORC5 subunits do not affect either of these functions. We also provide evidence that the Drosophila ORC6 subunit is directly required for all of these activities and that a large pool of ORC6 is present in the cytoplasm, cytologically proximal to the cell membrane. Studies reported here provide the first functional dissection of a metazoan initiator and highlight the basic conserved and divergent features among Drosophila and budding yeast ORC complexes.

Assembly of functionally active Drosophila origin recognition complex from recombinant proteins.

In eukaryotes the sites for the initiation of chromosomal DNA replication are believed to be determined in part by the binding of a heteromeric origin recognition complex (ORC) to DNA. We have cloned the genes encoding the subunits of the Drosophila ORC. Each of the genes is unique and can be mapped to discrete chromosomal locations implying that the pattern and developmental regulation of origin usage in Drosophila is not regulated solely by a large family of different ORC proteins. The six-subunit ORC can be reconstituted with recombinant proteins into a complex that restores DNA replication in ORC-depleted Drosophila or Xenopus egg extracts.

Enalapril effects on alcohol intake and other consummatory behaviors in alcoholics.

Animal studies suggest that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease alcohol intake. In a double-blind crossover study 42 normotensive alcoholics (36 men and six women) aged 24 to 65 years, consuming 8.2 +/- 2.3 (mean +/- SD) standard alcoholic drinks per day, were randomized to enalapril, 10 mg/day (n = 20) or 20 mg/day (n = 22), and placebo for 4 weeks. They monitored their daily alcohol intake and attended biweekly assessments, but no other treatment or advice was given. Compliance and alcohol intake were verified objectively. Mean daily alcoholic drinks were not significantly different during 10 mg/day enalapril (mean +/- SEM, 7.5 +/- 0.5), and its placebo (7.2 +/- 0.5), but both decreased from baseline (8.1 +/- 0.5; both p less than 0.05). Similarly, mean daily drinks during 20 mg/day enalapril (6.8 +/- 0.6) and its placebo (7.2 +/- 0.4) was not significantly different, but both were lower than baseline (8.3 +/- 0.5; both p less than 0.01). Fourteen (64%) of the patients taking 20 mg/day enalapril decreased alcohol intake from placebo by an average of 21% (range, 1.6% to 78.3%). Self-ratings of interest, desire, craving, and liking for alcohol also decreased from baseline during enalapril and placebo treatments, but the effects of both were similar. Plasma renin activity increased, compared with placebo, after 10 mg/day enalapril (from 0.3 +/- 0.2 [mean +/- SD] to 1.9 +/- 1.5 ng/L/sec) and after 20 mg/day enalapril (from 0.4 +/- 0.3 to 2.8 +/- 4.0 ng/L/sec) (both p less than 0.05). Blood pressure decreased within a normotensive range, compared with placebo, with 10 mg/day enalapril (by 6.0 and 8.5 mm Hg systolic and diastolic blood pressures) and 20 mg/day enalapril (by 7.7 and 5.0 mm Hg, respectively). Side effects were few and mild. No patient characteristic or drug effect correlated with changes in alcohol intake. There were no significant variations in nonalcoholic beverages, cigarette smoking, or body weight. These results indicate that enalapril does not alter alcohol intake in normotensive alcoholics with normal plasma renin activity. Studies with higher doses of enalapril in humans may be limited by increased frequency and severity of side effects.

Fluoxetine differentially alters alcohol intake and other consummatory behaviors in problem drinkers.

The effects of fluoxetine, a relatively selective long-acting serotonin uptake inhibitor, on the consumption of alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks, cigarette smoking, and body weight were assessed in 29 men who were early stage problem drinkers. After a 2-week baseline, subjects were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg/day fluoxetine (n = 8), 60 mg/day fluoxetine (n = 11), or placebo (n = 10) for 4 weeks. Fluoxetine 60 mg/day decreased mean daily alcoholic drinks from (X +/- SEM) 8.3 +/- 0.7 during baseline to 6.9 +/- 0.7 and decreased total drinks per 14 days from 115.8 +/- 9.3 to 96.5 +/- 9.5 (p less than 0.01; 17.3% decrease from baseline), with no significant increase in days of abstinence. Neither 40 mg/day fluoxetine nor placebo had effects on intake of alcohol. Fluoxetine 60 mg/day decreased total and mean daily alcoholic drinks compared with 40 mg/day fluoxetine (ANCOVA, both p less than 0.02), but neither dose of fluoxetine was different from placebo. Compared with placebo, both 40 mg/day fluoxetine and 60 mg/day fluoxetine no differences were detected between treatment groups, 60 mg/day fluoxetine increased mean daily nonalcoholic beverages from baseline (5.0 +/- 0.4 to 5.6 +/- 0.3, p less than 0.01) and increased daily cigarettes smoked (from 25.1 +/- 4.6 to 26.9 +/- 4.5, p less than 0.05), whereas no significant changes from baseline were observed with 40 mg/day fluoxetine or placebo.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Differential effects of viqualine on alcohol intake and other consummatory behaviors.

Viqualine, a serotonin releaser and uptake inhibitor, was studied for its effects on consummatory behaviors (intake of ethanol and nonalcoholic beverages, cigarette smoking, and changes in body weight) in 29 men who were early-stage problem drinkers between 21 to 55 years of age. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive a placebo and either 100 mg/day viqualine (n = 15) or 200 mg/day viqualine (n = 14) orally in a double-blind crossover study. Viqualine administration and ethanol intake were assessed by self-reports and by measurement of drug and ethanol concentrations in body fluids. Compared with placebo, 100 mg/day viqualine did not decrease ethanol intake. However, 200 mg/day viqualine significantly decreased the total number of drinks consumed in a 14-day period (F1,12 = 5.3; p less than 0.05). An increase in the number of abstinent days was significant only for those subjects who received the placebo first (F1,6 = 11.3, p less than 0.02). Subjects reported a decreased interest in and decreased desire for alcohol during viqualine treatment. Patterns of response varied, but 64% of the subjects decreased the number of alcoholic drinks consumed and/or increased the number of days of abstinence by at least 25% during treatment with 200 mg/day viqualine compared with placebo treatment. Neither dose of viqualine had an effect on cigarette smoking or on consumption of nonalcoholic beverages, but subjects showed significant decreases in body weight with both doses. These findings indicate that viqualine both attenuates ethanol intake and reduces body weight in human beings.