Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About the Journal
    • General Information
    • Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Benefits of Publishing
    • Impact & Metrics
    • Advertising/Sponsorship
    • About the Biochemical Society
  • Current Issue
  • For Authors
    • Submit Your Paper
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Editorial Policy
    • Open Access Policy
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Biochemical Society Member Benefits
  • For Librarians
    • Subscriptions and Pricing
    • Check Your Usage
    • Promote to Your Users
    • Terms and Conditions
      • Biochemical Society Transactions- Terms and Conditions of Usage
    • Open Access Policy
    • FAQs for Librarians
    • Register for Free Trial
  • For Readers
    • Subscribe
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Recommend to Your Library
    • Biochemical Society Member Benefits
    • Journal Access for Biochemical Society Members
    • Request a Free Trial
  • Collections
  • Help
    • Technical Support
    • Contact Us
  • Other Publications
    • Biochemical Journal
    • Clinical Science
    • Bioscience Reports
    • Neuronal Signaling
    • Biochemical Society Transactions
    • Essays in Biochemistry
    • Emerging Topics in Life Sciences
    • Biochemical Society Symposia
    • Cell Signalling Biology
    • The Biochemist
    • Biochemical Society
    • Glossary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

User menu

  • Log-in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us

Search

  • Advanced search
  • Other Publications
    • Biochemical Journal
    • Clinical Science
    • Bioscience Reports
    • Neuronal Signaling
    • Biochemical Society Transactions
    • Essays in Biochemistry
    • Emerging Topics in Life Sciences
    • Biochemical Society Symposia
    • Cell Signalling Biology
    • The Biochemist
    • Biochemical Society
    • Glossary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Log-in

Sign-up for alerts   
  • My Cart
Biochemical Society Transactions
Browse Archive
Advanced Search
  • Home
  • About the Journal
    • General Information
    • Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Benefits of Publishing
    • Impact & Metrics
    • Advertising/Sponsorship
    • About the Biochemical Society
  • Current Issue
  • For Authors
    • Submit Your Paper
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Editorial Policy
    • Open Access Policy
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Biochemical Society Member Benefits
  • For Librarians
    • Subscriptions and Pricing
    • Check Your Usage
    • Promote to Your Users
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Open Access Policy
    • FAQs for Librarians
    • Register for Free Trial
  • For Readers
    • Subscribe
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Recommend to Your Library
    • Biochemical Society Member Benefits
    • Journal Access for Biochemical Society Members
    • Request a Free Trial
  • Collections
  • Help
    • Technical Support
    • Contact Us

Review Article

Do nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide really qualify as ‘gasotransmitters’ in bacteria?

Lauren K. Wareham, Hannah M. Southam, Robert K. Poole
Biochemical Society Transactions Sep 06, 2018, 46 (5) 1107-1118; DOI: 10.1042/BST20170311
Lauren K. Wareham
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt Eye Institute, 11420 Medical Research Building IV, 215B Garland Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232-0654, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • View author's works on this site
Hannah M. Southam
Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, The University of Sheffield, Firth Court, Sheffield S10 2TN, U.K.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • View author's works on this site
Robert K. Poole
Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, The University of Sheffield, Firth Court, Sheffield S10 2TN, U.K.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • View author's works on this site
  • For correspondence: r.poole@sheffield.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Figures
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

A gasotransmitter is defined as a small, generally reactive, gaseous molecule that, in solution, is generated endogenously in an organism and exerts important signalling roles. It is noteworthy that these molecules are also toxic and antimicrobial. We ask: is this definition of a gasotransmitter appropriate in the cases of nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in microbes? Recent advances show that, not only do bacteria synthesise each of these gases, but the molecules also have important signalling or messenger roles in addition to their toxic effects. However, strict application of the criteria proposed for a gasotransmitter leads us to conclude that the term ‘small molecule signalling agent’, as proposed by Fukuto and others, is preferable terminology.

  • carbon monoxide
  • cellular signalling
  • gasotransmitters
  • hydrogen sulfide
  • nitric oxide

Introduction: Don't shoot the messenger!

The term ‘gasotransmitter’ or ‘gaseous transmitter’ appears to have been coined ca. 2002 [1] to describe endogenously generated gaseous molecules that play important physiological roles. Specifically, they were defined [1,2] by the following six criteria:

  • (i) They are small (molecular mass 28–34) molecules of gas [such as nitric oxide (NO), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S)].

  • (ii) They are freely permeable through membranes and therefore act without cognate membrane receptors. In this respect, they differ from better-established transmitters such as hormones, neurotransmitters and drugs.

  • (iii) Their endogenous generation is enzymatic and highly regulated, a characteristic that chimes with the potentially toxic nature of the best established of the gasotransmitters — currently NO, CO and H2S.

  • (iv) They have well-defined, specific functions at physiologically relevant, generally exceptionally low, concentrations. Manipulating endogenous levels evokes specific physiological changes.

  • (v) Their functions can be mimicked by exogenous counterparts (for example, NO-releasing compounds or CO-releasing molecules, CORMs)

  • (vi) Their cellular effects may or may not be mediated by secondary messengers, but specific final targets are implicated. For example, NO may result in vasodilation by prior interaction with soluble guanylate cyclase (GC, formerly sGC), or may bind directly to haem proteins and a multitude of other targets.

However, as observed by Samuel Butler, ‘Definitions are a kind of scratching and generally leave a sore place more sore than it was before’. In this short review, we do not wish to scratch too vigorously, but feel that, in microbial science in particular, it is useful to question the early definitions. The term has been widely adopted: a recent Web of Science search reveals almost 1200 hits. A major criticism of the term is that each of these three molecules is completely soluble at physiologically relevant concentrations: the term ‘gas’ does not accurately describe their physical state or chemical reactivity [3]. Nevertheless, one uniting feature lies in their biochemical targets, i.e. the reactive centres with which they interact (redox-active metals or amino acids, notably cysteine thiols or tyrosine phenols). The commonality of targets disguises, however, the distinctions in reaction mechanisms that underpin the ability of ‘gasotransmitters’ to achieve exquisite control.

Here, we consider how relevant and precise the term ‘gasotransmitter’ is when applied to bacteria [4,5]. To what extent are the above criteria met? We must question, for example, the nature of the signal (if any) being transmitted by the molecule and its targets. Is the term ‘small molecule signalling agent’ proposed before [3] more apt in microbes? Note that we do not detail those chemical species that are chemically related to the gases NO, CO and H2S. For example, the oxidation/reduction products of NO, carbonylation reactions that introduce CO onto organic and inorganic substrates and the multiple low-molecular-mass persulfides are discussed only en passant. The topic has been reviewed on numerous occasions before, including in this journal [6] and The Biochemist (e.g. [7–9]). New members of the gasotransmitter family are proposed, such as sulfur dioxide [10].

The eukaryotic exemplars: NO, CO and H2S

This trinity comprises the first ‘gasotransmitters’ to be identified and they remain the best studied. Since its discovery as a signal mediator in the early 1980s, NO has been implicated in a myriad of physiological processes with roles in the immune, cardiovascular and nervous systems [11]. Nitric oxide synthase (NOS) is the enzyme responsible for endogenous NO production and three isoforms exist in mammals: the constitutive forms: neuronal NOS1 (nNOS) and endothelial NOS3 (eNOS), and the inducible NOS2 (iNOS). NOS enzymes were initially classified by their localisation and expression patterns, but this is misleading: eNOS is found in cells and tissues other than the endothelium, nNOS is found in cells other than neurons and iNOS is found constitutively in some tissues [12]. Nevertheless, the diverse expression and subcellular locations of NOS leads to an array of NO-mediated physiological effects.

Whereas NO was discovered as the chemical mediator of an important biological function (most famously vasodilation), the production of CO in mammalian physiology was recognised long before much attention had been devoted to its biological function [13]. Its presence in biology was thought to be merely as a waste product of the degradation of haem, a reaction catalysed by the enzyme haem oxygenase (HO), also liberating Fe and biliverdin. However, CO has latterly been recognised as a potent biological messenger in mammalian systems. Haem oxygenases exist in constitutive (HO-2) and inducible (HO-1) isoforms [14]. While HO-2 is predominantly expressed in testes, brain and the endothelium, HO-1 is up-regulated in tissues following various stress stimuli, including oxidative stress, which is an underlying factor in different pathological states [15]. At physiological levels, CO has been shown to mediate a broad array of signalling processes, including the production of inflammatory mediators [16], cell survival and apoptosis [17], signalling in the central nervous system [18] and in bacterial infection [19].

By comparison, the acceptance of H2S as a gasotransmitter is more recent. Although the presence of H2S in tissue had been noted for decades, and its potential signalling capacity was first noted in the late 1990s [20], the argument for gasotransmitter status, founded on its endogenous metabolism and physiological functions, was made much later [1]. H2S is endogenously generated via both non-enzymatic and enzymatic pathways. In mammalian tissues, the enzymatic production of H2S from l-cysteine is catalysed by cystathionine-β-synthase (CBS), cystathionine-γ-synthase (CSE) and the 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase/cysteine aminotransferase (3-MST/CAT) pathways (e.g. [21,22]). Like NO and CO, H2S at very low levels affects human physiology at molecular, cellular, tissue and system levels [22,23].

Thus, gasotransmitters in mammalian systems are endogenous signalling molecules; cellular production leads to their binding to cell surface receptors, intracellular receptors and proteins, triggering a cascade of events that lead to multiple physiological outcomes. Are these effects mirrored in microbes?

NO in microbes: gasotransmitter or not?

The products of NO oxidation by oxygen (NO2), the nitrosonium cation (NO+), the nitroxyl anion (NO−) and peroxynitrite (ONOO−; the product of the reaction of NO with superoxide) are outside the scope of this short review. As we have argued before [24,25], although these congeners of NO are of immense biological importance, and are ‘close cousins’, they are not NO. That NO satisfies criteria (i) and (ii), namely in being a small molecule that permeates membranes, is evident, but what is the origin of NO in microbes?

One criterion for a gasotransmitter is that it should be endogenously generated. The most significant sources of NO in a bacterial context are (a) synthesis by NOS in the gut epithelium, (b) release by denitrifying bacteria and nitrite reduction [26] and (c) synthesis by iNOS [27] as a component of the antibacterial weaponry in phagocytic cells (macrophages and monocytes) [28] on stimulation by cytokines. Minor sources include anaerobic reduction of nitrite to ammonia or the chemical reduction of nitrite by FeS proteins or haemproteins [29]. However, bacteria also possess NOS enzymes (bacterial NOS, bNOS; Figure 1) that share similarities with the mammalian forms [27], but lack the reductase domain of eukaryotes. Electron donation is achieved from specialist or promiscuous cellular reductases [30,31]. Specialised roles for bacterial NOS have been proposed in nitration reactions [32], resistance to oxidative stress and antibiotics [33,34], and host colonisation [35].

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1. NO sensing and mechanisms of resistance to toxicity.

NO readily enters microbial cells from diverse exogenous sources, but may also be synthesised from arginine by bacterial NO synthase (bNOS). Primary and secondary sensors detect NO, which exerts numerous antimicrobial effects, but paradoxically may protect bacteria from antibiotic action. The toxicity of NO is minimised by NO-detoxifying proteins (Hmp, Nrf, NorV and Hcp). However, it is unclear whether endogenously generated NO elicits equivalent defence responses. For details, see the text.

Further criteria (iv–vi) are that the small molecule should have well-defined and specific functions at physiologically relevant concentrations and that its levels should evoke specific physiological changes. A clear example of a function for bNOS-generated NO is its role as a virulence factor in Bacillus anthracis [36], in which NO-mediated activation of bacterial catalase and suppression of the damaging Fenton reaction protects the bacterium from the immune oxidative burst. More striking is the role of NO from bNOS in increasing the resistance to antibiotics [34]. This appears to be achieved in two ways: chemical modification of the drugs (e.g. nitrosation reactions with arylamino moiety of acriflavin) and alleviating the impact of oxidative stress that is proposed to accompany antibiotic action. Certain bacteria exploit bNOS-derived NO in competition with others: Bacillus sp. use NO to reduce the oxidative stress associated with pyocyanin production by Pseudomonas [34]. However, many aspects of their functions, particularly in the NO-producing cell, remain obscure.

With such exceptions, it is unclear what function NO fulfils in bacteria; this is for semantic debate, perhaps. However, if we accept that the function of intracellular NO may be to signal the presence of exogenous NO as a potentially toxic agent, then the sensing mechanism(s) are relevant.

NO sensing and signalling

An interesting example of NO acting as a signal between bacterium and host is that of Moraxella catarrhalis [37]. The nitrite reductase NirK (also known as AniA) generates NO and it is thought that this diffuses into the proximate environment of the bacterium where it increases the secretion of tumour necrosis factor alpha and modulates the expression of apoptotic proteins, therefore triggering host cell programmed death, thus dysregulating host cell gene expression. Conversely, nitrite-derived NO is toxic towards M. catarrhalis in maturing biofilms [37,38]. An opposite case might be the consumption of NO by meningococci [39]. We demonstrated that expression of meningococcal NorB increased the rate at which low-molecular-mass S-nitrosothiols (SNO) decompose in vitro. We then induced SNO formation in murine macrophages by activation with lipopolysaccharide and γ-interferon, resulting in a reduced abundance of SNO during co-incubation with Neisseria meningitidis, Salmonella enterica or Escherichia coli. In each case, this was dependent on bacterial NO detoxification genes, which prevented SNO formation through the removal of NO. This may represent a novel mechanism of NO-mediated host cell injury by bacteria.

NO sensors (Figure 1) may be subdivided into those that are specialised (or dedicated), and those that are secondary, in the sense that the sensor responds to another, primary signal. The prototypical secondary sensor is SoxR, its primary function being sensing of superoxide anion by virtue of a reactive [2Fe-2S] cluster that becomes oxidised, presumably by superoxide itself [40]. However, NO also activates SoxR and induces expression of genes in the SoxRS regulon. A further example is the bacterial redox sensor Fnr: its primary signal is O2, which reacts with the [4Fe-4S], via a mechanism that has been the subject of intensive studies [41]. However, Fnr also senses NO [42]. The Fnr homologue in Azotobacter vinelandii, CydR, is also both oxygen- and NO-reactive [43]. Subsequently, many other bacterial FeS proteins were reported to sense NO, e.g. the NO-responsive regulator of flavohaemoglobin gene expression in Streptomyces coelicolor[44]. Other secondary sensors include OxyR, MetR, DosS and Fur (for a review, see ref. [45]).

A well-established example of a dedicated NO sensor is that of NorR. In E. coli, NorR activates the divergently transcribed norVW genes in response to NO (or nitroprusside, GSNO or acidified nitrite, which we do not discuss here; see ref. [25]). These NorR-activated genes encode a flavorubredoxin and its redox partner that reduce NO to nitrous oxide at the expense of NADH [46–48]. NorR is activated by the formation of a mono-nitrosyl complex at a mononuclear iron centre (not an [FeS] cluster or haem) in the GAF domain [49,50]. Ferrous NorR reacts with NO in vitro, suggesting that NorR is a sensor of NO per se. However, in other bacteria, as in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, NorR activates transcription of the fhp gene (encoding flavohaemoglobin) in response to NO [51]. Thus, NorR is a true NO sensor and turns on genes exclusively involved in NO metabolism, but the physiological cue signalled by this mechanism in nature is unclear.

NsrR is also an NO-responsive regulator in many bacteria including E. coli [52,53], Bacillus subtilis [54], Neisseria gonorrhoae[55] and S. coelicolor [56]. Numerous genes may be so regulated but in S. coelicolor only two flavohaemoglobin genes (hmpA1 and hmpA2) are targets. These genes encode the NO-detoxifying flavohaemoglobin, rationalising the control exerted. The S. coelicolor NsrR contains an NO-reactive [4Fe-4S] cluster and exhibits high-affinity DNA binding to the operators of the NsrR-regulated genes. The reactions with NO are complex with up to 8–10 NO molecules reacting per cluster, leading to the formation of several iron-nitrosyl species [44].

Distinct classes of NO sensors are represented by the H-NOX proteins (haem-NO or oxygen-binding domain) [57,58] and the NosP protein discovered by Boon and colleagues. These haem proteins are widely distributed in bacterial genera and encoded in operons with genes for kinases or cyclic di-AMP synthesis/phosphodiesterase enzymes. In P. aeruginosa, it is well recognised that NO ‘directs’ the bacterium to disperse biofilms at picomolar concentrations and several proteins have been implicated, namely BdlA, DipA and others (see [58]). NosP is in the same operon as a gene for kinase previously implicated in biofilm formation. Biofilms of a mutant in the NosP signalling pathway lose the ability to disperse in response to NO [57], so NosP may be a global biofilm regulator. In Vibrio cholerae, NO binding to NosP inhibits the autophosphorylation activity of a histidine kinase implicated in quorum sensing. In other words, NO seems to regulate quorum sensing and biofilm formation, and may be a clear case of NO acting as a signal that alters bacterial behaviour. Beneficial effects of NO signalling are also reported in yeast [59]. However, why such physiological responses should be controlled by NO or what the source of that NO might be in natural environments is less clear.

CO sensing in microbes?

Unlike NO, CO has no obvious function in the vast majority of bacteria, with a few notable exceptions. Some prokaryotes that survive in hostile conditions sense and metabolise CO [60,61]. Often, these sensing proteins bear a haem cofactor that provides an allosteric binding site for CO due to the high affinity of the iron (witness the binding of CO to globin proteins). The most well-studied haem-dependent gas-sensing transcription factor is CooA (CO oxidation activator) from Rhodospirillum rubrum [62,63]. CooA, a member of the FNR/CRP superfamily of transcriptional regulators, is a homodimeric protein comprising an N-terminal haem-binding domain and a C-terminal helix–turn–helix DNA-binding domain. The haem iron undergoes a redox-mediated ligand switch as the mechanism for activation. A further haem-containing transcription factor associated with CO metabolism occurs in Burkholderia xenovorans (LB400) [64], which catalyses dissimilatory nitrate reduction and aerobic CO oxidation [65]. The cox genes that encode the molybdo-flavoprotein complex required for CO oxidation are regulated by the transcription factors RcoM-1 and RcoM-2 (regulator of CO metabolism). In this sense, then, CO may be considered as a ‘transmitter’, the signal being the availability of a useable, if unlikely, carbon source. It has been suggested that CO, occurring at a concentration of ∼700 ppm on Mars, could support near-surface bacterial activity; an abundant potential oxidant is perchlorate [66].

A more familiar part played by CO in biology is that of poison. CO is a notoriously toxic gas, binding primarily to ferrous oxygen-reactive haem proteins [67] in competition with oxygen. CO is generally considered to be toxic to microorganisms. It is used to preserve meat [68], but many bacteria are relatively resistant, in part, because they possess CO-insensitive oxidases, such as cytochrome bd [69]. Indeed, airborne bacteria survive high urban CO concentrations [70], and bacterial cultures may be bubbled with CO with little toxicity [71,72].

As described above, CO is generated endogenously in mammals by HO-catalysed breakdown of haem and, although relatively inert from a chemical standpoint, CO is an established gasotransmitter. Certain bacteria (e.g. Mycobacterium tuberculosis) sense host-derived CO (Figure 2). The DevRS/DosT (also called DosRS/DosT) system regulates an ∼50-member regulon in response to hypoxia, NO and CO [73–75]. More recently, the DevR regulon has been implicated in the transition of M. tuberculosis from an actively respiring to a latent non-replicating persistent state [76].

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2. Carbon monoxide sensing and mechanisms of resistance to toxicity.

CO readily enters microbial cells from diverse exogenous sources, but may also be synthesised by endogenous haem oxygenase activity; the role of endogenously derived CO is unclear. Numerous sensors detect CO, leading to CO metabolism or downstream gene regulation. CO exerts numerous antimicrobial effects, but Cor is reported to afford protection. The reported effects of CO on ATP release from bacteria are unexplained. For details, see the text.

Curiously, infection with M. tuberculosis induces (and co-localises with) HO1 in both mouse and human tuberculosis lesions and primary human macrophages. This induction itself appears to be a virulence mechanism since experimental inhibition of HO1 reduces inflammatory cytokine production and restricts mycobacterial growth [77]. It is unclear whether HO1 is beneficial or detrimental during human infections by mycobacteria.

Wegiel et al. [71] recently hypothesised that bacteria exposed to CO release ATP (Figure 2), which activates inflammatory pathways. This appears to be a clear example of a gasotransmitter role, albeit between species: it is proposed that HO-1 is induced by endotoxin (LPS) (from bacteria) and generates CO. CO emitted by the host macrophage ‘compels the bacteria to generate ATP’, which acts as a danger-associated molecular pattern for the macrophage. The bacteria-derived ATP binds to a purinergic receptor on the macrophage, leading to activation of the inflammasome to drive pathogen clearance. There are several puzzling aspects of this claim. First, we are unaware of any extracellular or periplasmic location of ATP in bacteria, implying that the ATP ‘leaked’ from damaged cells, although the authors state that bacteria were viable. Second, the ATP release was attributed to a CO-dependent increase in bacterial ATP levels, a finding hard to reconcile with inhibition of respiration by CO.

If CO is toxic, it might be expected that bacteria could possess genes that confer CO resistance. One such gene, cor, has been described in M. tuberculosis (Figure 2). Zacharia et al. [78] screened an M. tuberculosis transposon library for mutants susceptible to an atmosphere of 2% CO and found that disruption of Rv1829 (carbon monoxide resistance, Cor) led to marked CO sensitivity. Heterologous expression of Cor in E. coli rescued it from CO toxicity, although this assay used CORM-2 [tricarbonyldichlororuthenium(II) dimer] as a CO source, not CO itself. The impact of the redox-active ruthenium ion [79] should be assessed in further studies. Importantly, the virulence of the cor mutant was attenuated in a mouse model of tuberculosis. Thus, Cor appears to protect bacteria from host-derived CO. Conceivably, this example could serve as an illustration of a bacterium receiving a signal on the presence of CO, but the molecular mechanisms of the CO sensing and its detoxification are unknown.

H2S sensing and signalling in microbes

H2S is emerging as an important mediator or gasotransmitter, promoting the resolution of inflammation and injury repair [22,80]. A recent bibliometric analysis of publications in biology and medicine shows almost 6000 papers between 1990 and 2016 [81]. Although the term ‘hydrogen sulfide’ is most commonly used [20], H2S is a weak acid in aqueous solutions — dissociating into its anions HS− and S2−. As the dissociation equilibrium between H2S and HS− is at pH ∼7, in physiological conditions ‘H2S’ exists predominantly as its anion HS− (∼80%), H2S (∼20%) and negligible amounts of S2−, which are collectively termed the ‘sulfide pool’ [82]. Thus, although it has not been possible to determine which form of H2S (H2S, HS− or S2−) is active, the term ‘hydrogen sulfide’ has been used in toxicity studies [20], and it is customarily regarded as a gasotransmitter [23].

The principal pathways that mediate H2S production in mammalian systems (e.g. [21,22]) are shown in Figure 3. A more recently discovered route involves 3-MST and d-amino acid oxidase [83]. H2S in higher organisms also arises in part from bacterial sulfur metabolism. Homologues of CBS, CSE and 3-MST/CAT also appear to be ubiquitous across bacterial genomes [84], although in most bacteria l-cysteine is produced enzymatically (via CysE, CysK and CysM) from l-serine. For a review, see [85]. H2S may also be generated in microbes by other physiological processes, i.e. via degradation of cysteine and other sulfur-containing amino acids/peptides, or non-enzymatically, by dissimilatory reduction of inorganic sulfur compounds [84,86] (Figure 3). Non-enzymatic generation of H2S by obligate or facultative anaerobic sulfate-reducing bacteria occurs via the utilisation of inorganic sulfur compounds such as sulfates, sulfites or polysulfides as alternative terminal electron acceptors for reduced organic substrates [86].

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3. Hydrogen sulfide biosynthesis, signalling and regulation.

As described in the text, H2S is synthesised by diverse pathways from cysteine and cystathionine, but also readily permeates membranes in the unionised form. Specific H2S synthesis enzymes include cystathionine-β-synthase (CBS), cystathionine-γ-synthase (CSE) and the 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase/cysteine aminotransferase (3-MST/CAT) pathway. Persulfides (e.g. CysSSR) are key to H2S signalling pathways. CstR is a persulfide-sensing sulfide stress-response regulator in S. aureus.

H2S, like NO but unlike CO, is reactive. Its signalling effects are complex since it interacts with oxygen and NO. These reaction products are outside the scope of this review. At elevated concentrations, extracellular H2S is toxic to bacteria, complexing with transition metals, leading to respiratory inhibition and covalent modification of haem-containing and Fe–S containing enzymes [82]. Recently, a specific terminal oxidase, cytochrome bd, has been shown to be required for sulfide tolerance [87]; the same oxidase also confers tolerance to NO [88] and CORM-2 [69]. Although H2S-induced toxicity is linked to oxidative damage via inhibition of antioxidant enzymes [89], low levels of intracellular H2S protect against metal ion toxicity, antibiotics and oxidative damage. H2S directly scavenges metals ions and reactive oxygen species (ROS) and prevents Fenton chemistry and related antibiotic-induced oxidative damage [82,84,90]. H2S-mediated signalling processes appear to play an important role in microbial resistance to oxidative stress [82,91].

Low-molecular-mass persulfides such as cysteine hydropersulfide (CysSSH) and glutathione (GSSG) have long been recognised as important metabolites, and recent advances in analytical tools have identified many such species in prokaryotes and eukaryotes [85,92], but these are outside the scope of this review. H2S signalling occurs via post-translational modification of protein cysteine residues (–SH groups) to form the persulfide moiety (RSSH), which in turn modulates protein activity [91]. This process (persulfidation or ‘S-sulfhydration’) is the major mechanism of H2S signalling in mammalian systems leading to the classification of H2S as the third gasotransmitter. In evolutionarily diverse bacteria, sensing of persulfides typically involves transcriptional repressors that contain conserved cysteine residues that regulate DNA-binding activity. Persulfidation or oxidation of these residues induces structural changes leading to derepression of sulfide oxidation genes when reactive sulfide species (RSS) are present [93]. Proteomic profiling of Staphylococcus aureus in response to exogenous sulfide revealed that persulfidation regulates many key metabolic enzymes and ROS and RNS stress-response systems and other virulence-related genes, including the persulfide stress-response regulator CstR [91]. In addition, there appears to be a dedicated thioredoxin-mediated hydrosulfide reduction system that functions to reverse persulfidation in S. aureus [91,94].

To what extent is H2S a true signalling effector molecule in microbes? Though it is clear that bacteria both produce and sense H2S, albeit indirectly via related RSS, it is currently unclear whether endogenously produced H2S is an effector molecule that induces a signalling response in the same bacterial cell or if H2S-mediated responses are more a response to environmental and/or host-derived H2S or RSS.

Conclusions

There can be no doubt that in microbes, as in higher organisms, small molecules that can exist as gases (‘gasotransmitters’) are both generated and sensed. In the bacterial world, an extraordinarily sophisticated body of knowledge has been acquired on the generation of these signals/molecules and on their perception. However, in very few cases, do we understand what the signals mean. Many bacteria respond, for example, to NO, but why? The clearest rationalisation may be the protective response of bacteria that have been engulfed by phagocytic cells. Strictly adopting the criteria laid down in eukaryotic cells leads us to the view that, in such a case, the gas molecule is not a transmitter, being not generated endogenously (i.e. within the bacterium). Conversely, why do bacteria make NO? Similar doubts are raised regarding CO and H2S: to be regarded as a true ‘gasotransmitter’, the small signalling molecule should derive from, and be active in, the same cell/organism. Because many aspects of the microbial effects of these gases remain poorly resolved, it is perhaps dangerous to adopt the term ‘gasotransmitter’, which has been so precisely defined (Table 1). This leads us to conclude that the term ‘small molecule signalling agent’, as proposed by others, is preferable terminology in the case of bacteria.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1 Do NO, CO and H2S qualify as gasotransmitters?

For criteria (iv) to (vi), examples are given.

Conductors must give unmistakable and suggestive signals to the orchestra — not choreography to the audience

(George Szell, conductor, 1897–1970)

Funding

The UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) most recently [BB/M022579/1] funded work leading to this manuscript.

Competing Interests

The Authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with the manuscript.

Abbreviations: 3-MST, 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase; CAT, cysteine aminotransferase; CBS, cystathionine-β-synthase; CO, carbon monoxide; CooA, CO oxidation activator; Cor, carbon monoxide resistance; CORMs, CO-releasing molecules; CSE, cystathionine-γ-synthase; eNOS, endothelial NOS; H2S, hydrogen sulfide; Hcy, homocysteine; HO, haem oxygenase; iNOS, inducible NOS; nNOS, neuronal NOS; NO, nitric oxide; NOS, Nitric oxide synthase; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SNO, S-nitrosothiols

  • © 2018 The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wang, R.
    (2002) Two's company, three's a crowd: can H2S be the third endogenous gaseous transmitter? FASEB J. 16, 1792–1798 doi:10.1096/fj.02-0211hyp
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Wang, R.
    (2004) The evolution of gasotransmitter biology and medicine. From atmospheric toxic gases to endogenous gaseous signaling molecules. In Signal Transduction and the Gasotransmitters. NO, CO and H2S in Biology and Medicine (Wang, R., ed.), pp. 3–31, Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey
  3. ↵
    1. Fukuto, J.M.,
    2. Carrington, S.J.,
    3. Tantillo, D.J.,
    4. Harrison, J.G.,
    5. Ignarro, L.J.,
    6. Freeman, B.A.
    (2012) Small molecule signaling agents: the integrated chemistry and biochemistry of nitrogen oxides, oxides of carbon, dioxygen, hydrogen sulfide, and their derived species. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 25, 769–793 doi:10.1021/tx2005234
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Luhachack, L. and
    2. Nudler, E.
    (2014) Bacterial gasotransmitters: an innate defense against antibiotics. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 21, 13–17 doi:10.1016/j.mib.2014.06.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Chinta, K.C.,
    2. Saini, V.,
    3. Glasgow, J.N.,
    4. Mazorodze, J.H.,
    5. Rahman, M.A.,
    6. Reddy, D.
    (2016) The emerging role of gasotransmitters in the pathogenesis of tuberculosis. Nitric Oxide Biol. Chem. 59, 28–41 doi:10.1016/j.niox.2016.06.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Li, L. and
    2. Moore, P.K.
    (2007) An overview of the biological significance of endogenous gases: new roles for old molecules. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 35, 1138–1141 doi:10.1042/BST0351138
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Forte, E. and
    2. Giuffre, A.
    (2016) How bacteria breathe in hydrogen sulfide-rich environments. Biochemist 38, 8–11
    OpenUrl
    1. Zivanovic, J. and
    2. Filipovic, M.R.
    (2016) Hydrogen sulfide: stench from the past as a mediator of the future. Biochemist 38, 12–17
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Nichols, A.,
    2. Ahmed, K.A. and
    3. Patel, R.P.
    (2016) Yes to ‘NO’ host flora symbiosis. Biochemist 38, 18–21
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Huang, Y.Q.,
    2. Tang, C.S.,
    3. Du, J.B. and
    4. Jin, H.F.
    (2016) Endogenous sulfur dioxide: a new member of gasotransmitter family in the cardiovascular system. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2016, 8961951 doi:10.1155/2016/8961951
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Bryan, N.S. and
    2. Loscalzo, J.
    (2017) Nitrite and Nitrate in Human Health and Disease, Springer
  11. ↵
    1. Mattila, J.T. and
    2. Thomas, A.C.
    (2014) Nitric oxide synthase: non-canonical expression patterns. Front. Immunol. 5, 1–5 doi:10.3389/fimmu.2014.00478
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Maines, M.D. and
    2. Gibbs, P.E.M.
    (2005) 30 some years of heme oxygenase: from a ‘molecular wrecking ball’ to a ‘mesmerizing’ trigger of cellular events. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 338, 568–577 doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.08.121
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Maines, M.D.
    (1997) The heme oxygenase system: a regulator of second messenger gases. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 37, 517–554 doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.37.1.517
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Motterlini, R. and
    2. Foresti, R.
    (2017) Biological signaling by carbon monoxide and carbon monoxide-releasing molecules. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 312, C302–C313 doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00360.2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Otterbein, L.E.
    (2002) Carbon monoxide: innovative anti-inflammatory properties of an age-old gas molecule. Antiox. Redox Signal. 4, 309–319 doi:10.1089/152308602753666361
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Ryter, S.W. and
    2. Choi, A.M.K.
    (2013) Carbon monoxide: present and future indications for a medical gas. Korean J. Intern. Med. 28, 123–140 doi:10.3904/kjim.2013.28.2.123
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Queiroga, C.S.F.,
    2. Vercelli, A. and
    3. Vieira, H.L.A.
    (2015) Carbon monoxide and the CNS: challenges and achievements. Br. J. Pharmacol. 172, 1533–1545 doi:10.1111/bph.12729
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Wegiel, B.,
    2. Hauser, C.J. and
    3. Otterbein, L.E.
    (2015) Heme as a danger molecule in pathogen recognition. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 89, 651–661 doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.08.020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Abe, K. and
    2. Kimura, H.
    (1996) The possible role of hydrogen sulfide as an endogenous neuromodulator. J. Neurosci. 16, 1066–1071 doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-03-01066.1996
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Shibuya, N.,
    2. Tanaka, M.,
    3. Yoshida, M.,
    4. Ogasawara, Y.,
    5. Togawa, T.,
    6. Ishii, K.
    (2009) 3-Mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase produces hydrogen sulfide and bound sulfane sulfur in the brain. Antiox. Redox Signal. 11, 703–714 doi:10.1089/ars.2008.2253
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Rose, P.,
    2. Moore, P.K. and
    3. Zhu, Y.Z.
    (2017) H2s biosynthesis and catabolism: new insights from molecular studies. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 74, 1391–1412 doi:10.1007/s00018-016-2406-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Wang, R.
    (2003) The gasotransmitter role of hydrogen sulfide. Antiox. Redox Signal. 5, 493–501 doi:10.1089/152308603768295249
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Poole, R.K. and
    2. Hughes, M.N.
    (2000) New functions for the ancient globin family: bacterial responses to nitric oxide and nitrosative stress. Mol. Microbiol. 36, 775–783 doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.01889.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Bowman, L.A.H.,
    2. McLean, S.,
    3. Poole, R.K. and
    4. Fukuto, J.
    (2011) The diversity of microbial responses to nitric oxide and agents of nitrosative stress: close cousins but not identical twins. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 59, 135–219 doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-387661-4.00006-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Lundberg, J.O.,
    2. Weitzberg, E.,
    3. Cole, J.A. and
    4. Benjamin, N.
    (2004) Nitrate, bacteria and human health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2, 593–602 doi:10.1038/nrmicro929
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Stuehr, D.J. and
    2. Vasquez-Vivar, J.
    (2017) Nitric oxide synthases—from genes to function. Nitric Oxide Biol. Chem. 63, 29–29 doi:10.1016/j.niox.2017.01.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Stevanin, T.M.,
    2. Poole, R.K.,
    3. Demoncheaux, E.A.G. and
    4. Read, R.C.
    (2002) Flavohemoglobin Hmp protects Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium from nitric oxide-related killing by human macrophages. Infect. Immun. 70, 4399–4405 doi:10.1128/IAI.70.8.4399-4405.2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Cole, J.A.
    (2018) Anaerobic bacterial response to nitrosative stress. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 72, 193–237 doi:10.1016/bs.ampbs.2018.01.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Gusarov, I.,
    2. Starodubtseva, M.,
    3. Wang, Z.Q.,
    4. McQuade, L.,
    5. Lippard, S.J.,
    6. Stuehr, D.J.
    (2008) Bacterial nitric-oxide synthases operate without a dedicated redox partner. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 13140–13147 doi:10.1074/jbc.M710178200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Crane, B.R.,
    2. Sudhamsu, J. and
    3. Patel, B.A.
    (2010) Bacterial nitric oxide synthases. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 79, 445–470 doi:10.1146/annurev-biochem-062608-103436
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Kers, J.A.,
    2. Wach, M.J.,
    3. Krasnoff, S.B.,
    4. Widom, J.,
    5. Cameron, K.D.,
    6. Bukhalid, R.A.
    (2004) Nitration of a peptide phytotoxin by bacterial nitric oxide synthase. Nature 429, 79–82 doi:10.1038/nature02504
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Gusarov, I. and
    2. Nudler, E.
    (2005) NO-mediated cytoprotection: instant adaptation to oxidative stress in bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 13855–13860 doi:10.1073/pnas.0504307102
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Gusarov, I.,
    2. Shatalin, K.,
    3. Starodubtseva, M. and
    4. Nudler, E.
    (2009) Endogenous nitric oxide protects bacteria against a wide spectrum of antibiotics. Science 325, 1380–1384 doi:10.1126/science.1175439
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Kinkel, T.L.,
    2. Ramos-Montanez, S.,
    3. Pando, J.M.,
    4. Tadeo, D.V.,
    5. Strom, E.N.,
    6. Libby, S.J.
    (2017) An essential role for bacterial nitric oxide synthase in Staphylococcus aureus electron transfer and colonization. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 16224 doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.224
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Shatalin, K.,
    2. Gusarov, I.,
    3. Avetissova, E.,
    4. Shatalina, Y.,
    5. McQuade, L.E.,
    6. Lippard, S.J.
    (2008) Bacillus anthracis-derived nitric oxide is essential for pathogen virulence and survival in macrophages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 1009–1013 doi:10.1073/pnas.0710950105
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Mocca, B.,
    2. Yin, D.D.,
    3. Gao, Y.M. and
    4. Wang, W.
    (2015) Moraxella catarrhalis-produced nitric oxide has dual roles in pathogenicity and clearance of infection in bacterial-host cell co-cultures. Nitric Oxide Biol. Chem. 51, 52–62 doi:10.1016/j.niox.2015.10.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Mocca, B. and
    2. Wang, W.
    (2012) Bacterium-generated nitric oxide hijacks host tumor necrosis factor alpha signaling and modulates the host cell cycle in vitro. J. Bacteriol. 194, 4059–4068 doi:10.1128/JB.00476-12
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Laver, J.R.,
    2. Stevanin, T.M.,
    3. Messenger, S.L.,
    4. Lunn, A.D.,
    5. Lee, M.E.,
    6. Moir, J.W.
    (2010) Bacterial nitric oxide detoxification prevents host cell S-nitrosothiol formation: a novel mechanism of bacterial pathogenesis. FASEB J. 24, 286–295 doi:10.1096/fj.08-128330
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Spiro, S.
    (2007) Regulators of bacterial responses to nitric oxide. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 31, 193–211 doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2006.00061.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Green, J. and
    2. Paget, M.S.
    (2004) Bacterial redox sensors. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2, 954–966 doi:10.1038/nrmicro1022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Cruz-Ramos, H.,
    2. Crack, J.,
    3. Wu, G.,
    4. Hughes, M.N.,
    5. Scott, C.,
    6. Thomson, A.J.
    (2002) NO sensing by FNR: regulation of the Escherichia coli NO-detoxifying flavohaemoglobin, Hmp. EMBO J. 21, 3235–3244 doi:10.1093/emboj/cdf339
    OpenUrlAbstract
  42. ↵
    1. Wu, G.,
    2. Cruz-Ramos, H.,
    3. Hill, S.,
    4. Green, J.,
    5. Sawers, G. and
    6. Poole, R.K.
    (2000) Regulation of cytochrome bd expression in the obligate aerobe Azotobacter vinelandii by CydR (Fnr). Sensitivity to oxygen, reactive oxygen species, and nitric oxide. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 4679–4686 doi:10.1074/jbc.275.7.4679
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Crack, J.C.,
    2. Svistunenko, D.A.,
    3. Munnoch, J.,
    4. Thomson, A.J.,
    5. Hutchings, M.I. and
    6. Le Brun, N.E.
    (2016) Differentiated, promoter-specific response of 4Fe-4S NsrR DNA binding to reaction with nitric oxide. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 8663–8672 doi:10.1074/jbc.M115.693192
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Spiro, S.
    (2006) Nitric oxide-sensing mechanisms in Escherichia coli. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 34, 200–202 doi:10.1042/BST0340200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Gardner, A.M.,
    2. Gessner, C.R. and
    3. Gardner, P.R.
    (2003) Regulation of the nitric oxide reduction operon (norRVW) in Escherichia coli. Role of NorR and s54 in the nitric oxide stress response. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 10081–10086 doi:10.1074/jbc.M212462200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Gomes, C.M.,
    2. Giuffre, A.,
    3. Forte, E.,
    4. Vicente, J.B.,
    5. Saraiva, L.M.,
    6. Brunori, M.
    (2002) A novel type of nitric-oxide reductase — Escherichia coli flavorubredoxin. J. Biol. Chem. 277, 25273–25276 doi:10.1074/jbc.M203886200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Hutchings, M.I.,
    2. Mandhana, N. and
    3. Spiro, S.
    (2002) The NorR protein of Escherichia coli activates expression of the flavorubredoxin gene norV in response to reactive nitrogen species. J. Bacteriol. 184, 4640–4643 doi:10.1128/JB.184.16.4640-4643.2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. D'Autreaux, B.,
    2. Tucker, N.P.,
    3. Dixon, R. and
    4. Spiro, S.
    (2005) A non-haem iron centre in the transcription factor NorR senses nitric oxide. Nature 437, 769–772 doi:10.1038/nature03953
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    1. Tucker, N.,
    2. D'Autreaux, B.,
    3. Spiro, S. and
    4. Dixon, R.
    (2005) DNA binding properties of the Escherichia coli nitric oxide sensor NorR: towards an understanding of the regulation of flavorubredoxin expression. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 33, 181–183 doi:10.1042/BST0330181
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Arai, H.,
    2. Hayashi, M.,
    3. Kuroi, A.,
    4. Ishii, M. and
    5. Igarashi, Y.
    (2005) Transcriptional regulation of the flavohemoglobin gene for aerobic nitric oxide detoxification by the second nitric oxide-responsive regulator of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 187, 3960–3968 doi:10.1128/JB.187.12.3960-3968.2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Bodenmiller, D.M. and
    2. Spiro, S.
    (2006) The yjeB (nsrR) gene of Escherichia coli encodes a nitric oxide-sensitive transcriptional regulator. J. Bacteriol. 188, 874–881 doi:10.1128/JB.188.3.874-881.2006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Partridge, J.D.,
    2. Bodenmiller, D.M.,
    3. Humphrys, M.S. and
    4. Spiro, S.
    (2009) Nsrr targets in the Escherichia coli genome: new insights into DNA sequence requirements for binding and a role for NsrR in the regulation of motility. Mol. Microbiol. 73, 680–694 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2009.06799.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. ↵
    1. Kommineni, S.,
    2. Lama, A.,
    3. Popescu, B. and
    4. Nakano, M.M.
    (2012) Global transcriptional control by NsrR in Bacillus subtilis. J. Bacteriol. 194, 1679–1688 doi:10.1128/JB.06486-11
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Heurlier, K.,
    2. Thomson, M.J.,
    3. Aziz, N. and
    4. Moir, J.W.B.
    (2008) The nitric oxide (NO)-sensing repressor NsrR of Neisseria meningitidis has a compact regulon of genes involved in NO synthesis and detoxification. J. Bacteriol. 190, 2488–2495 doi:10.1128/JB.01869-07
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Crack, J.C.,
    2. Munnoch, J.,
    3. Dodd, E.L.,
    4. Knowles, F.,
    5. Al Bassam, M.M.,
    6. Kamali, S.
    (2015) Nsrr from Streptomyces coelicolor is a nitric oxide-sensing 4Fe-4S cluster protein with a specialized regulatory function. J. Biol. Chem. 290, 12689–12704 doi:10.1074/jbc.M115.643072
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Hossain, S. and
    2. Boon, E.M.
    (2017) Discovery of a novel nitric oxide binding protein and nitric-oxide-responsive signaling pathway in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. ACS Infect. Dis. 3, 454–461 doi:10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00027
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. ↵
    1. Hossain, S.,
    2. Nisbett, L.M. and
    3. Boon, E.M.
    (2017) Discovery of two bacterial nitric oxide-responsive proteins and their roles in bacterial biofilm regulation. Acc. Chem. Res. 50, 1633–1639 doi:10.1021/acs.accounts.7b00095
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    1. Astuti, R.I.,
    2. Nasuno, R. and
    3. Takagi, H.
    (2018) Nitric oxide signalling in yeast. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 72, 29–63 doi:10.1016/bs.ampbs.2018.01.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. ↵
    1. McDuff, S.,
    2. King, G.M.,
    3. Neupane, S. and
    4. Myers, M.R.
    (2016) Isolation and characterization of extremely halophilic CO-oxidizing Euryarchaeota from hypersaline cinders, sediments and soils and description of a novel CO oxidizer, Haloferax namakaokahaiae Mke2.3(T), sp. nov. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 92, fiw028 doi:10.1093/femsec/fiw028
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Weber, C.F. and
    2. King, G.M.
    (2017) Volcanic soils as sources of novel CO-oxidizing Paraburkholderia and Burkholderia: Paraburkholderia hiiakae sp nov., Paraburkholderia metrosideri sp nov., Paraburkholderia paradisi sp nov., Paraburkholderia peleae sp nov., and Burkholderia alpina sp nov. a member of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. Front. Microbiol. 8, 207 doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.00207
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Shelver, D.,
    2. Kerby, R.L.,
    3. He, Y.P. and
    4. Roberts, G.P.
    (1997) Cooa, a CO-sensing transcription factor from Rhodospirillum rubrum, is a CO-binding heme protein. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 11216–11220 doi:10.1073/pnas.94.21.11216
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Shelver, D.,
    2. Thorsteinsson, M.V.,
    3. Kerby, R.L.,
    4. Chung, S.Y.,
    5. Roberts, G.P.,
    6. Reynolds, M.F.
    (1999) Identification of two important heme site residues (cysteine 75 and histidine 77) in CooA, the CO-sensing transcription factor of Rhodospirillum rubrum. Biochemistry 38, 2669–2678 doi:10.1021/bi982658j
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Kerby, R.L.,
    2. Youn, H. and
    3. Roberts, G.P.
    (2008) Rcom: a new single-component transcriptional regulator of CO metabolism in bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 190, 3336–3343 doi:10.1128/JB.00033-08
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. King, G.M.
    (2006) Nitrate-dependent anaerobic carbon monoxide oxidation by aerobic CO-oxidizing bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 56, 1–7 doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00065.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. ↵
    1. Myers, M.R. and
    2. King, G.M.
    (2017) Perchlorate-coupled carbon monoxide (CO) oxidation: evidence for a plausible microbe-mediated reaction in Martian brines. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2571 doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.02571
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. ↵
    1. Davidge, K.S.,
    2. Sanguinetti, G.,
    3. Yee, C.H.,
    4. Cox, A.G.,
    5. McLeod, C.W.,
    6. Monk, C.E.
    (2009) Carbon monoxide-releasing antibacterial molecules target respiration and global transcriptional regulators. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 4516–4524 doi:10.1074/jbc.M808210200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Ramamoorthi, L.,
    2. Toshkov, S. and
    3. Brewer, M.S.
    (2009) Effects of carbon monoxide-modified atmosphere packaging and irradiation on E. coli K12 survival and raw beef quality. Meat Sci. 83, 358–365 doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Jesse, H.E.,
    2. Nye, T.L.,
    3. McLean, S.,
    4. Green, J.,
    5. Mann, B.E. and
    6. Poole, R.K.
    (2013) The terminal oxidase cytochrome bd-I in Escherichia coli has lower susceptibility than cytochromes bd-II or bo′ to inhibition by the carbon monoxide-releasing molecule, CORM-3: N-acetylcysteine reduces CO-RM uptake and inhibition of respiration. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1834, 1693–1703 doi:10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.04.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Lighthart, B.
    (1973) Survival of airborne bacteria in a high urban concentration of carbon monoxide. Appl. Microbiol. 25, 86–91 PMID:4631439
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Wegiel, B.,
    2. Larsen, R.,
    3. Gallo, D.,
    4. Chin, B.Y.,
    5. Harris, C.,
    6. Mannam, P.
    (2014) Macrophages sense and kill bacteria through carbon monoxide-dependent inflammasome activation. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 4926–4940 doi:10.1172/JCI72853
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Wareham, L.K.,
    2. Begg, R.,
    3. Jesse, H.E.,
    4. van Beilen, J.W.A.,
    5. Ali, S.,
    6. Svistunenko, D.
    (2016) Carbon monoxide gas is not inert, but global, in its consequences for bacterial gene expression, iron acquisition, and antibiotic resistance. Antiox. Redox Signal. 24, 1013–1028 doi:10.1089/ars.2015.6501
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. ↵
    1. Voskuil, M.I.,
    2. Schnappinger, D.,
    3. Visconti, K.C.,
    4. Harrell, M.I.,
    5. Dolganov, G.M.,
    6. Sherman, D.R.
    (2003) Inhibition of respiration by nitric oxide induces a Mycobacterium tuberculosis dormancy program. J. Exp. Med. 198, 705–713 doi:10.1084/jem.20030205
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kumar, A.,
    2. Deshane, J.S.,
    3. Crossman, D.K.,
    4. Bolisetty, S.,
    5. Yan, B.S.,
    6. Kramnik, I.
    (2008) Heme oxygenase-1-derived carbon monoxide induces the Mycobacterium tuberculosis dormancy regulon. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 18032–18039 doi:10.1074/jbc.M802274200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    1. Shiloh, M.U.,
    2. Manzanillo, P. and
    3. Cox, J.S.
    (2008) Mycobacterium tuberculosis senses host-derived carbon monoxide during macrophage infection. Cell Host Microb. 3, 323–330 doi:10.1016/j.chom.2008.03.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    1. Leistikow, R.L.,
    2. Morton, R.A.,
    3. Bartek, I.L.,
    4. Frimpong, I.,
    5. Wagner, K. and
    6. Voskuil, M.I.
    (2010) The Mycobacterium tuberculosis DosR regulon assists in metabolic homeostasis and enables rapid recovery from nonrespiring dormancy. J. Bacteriol. 192, 1662–1670 doi:10.1128/JB.00926-09
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Scharn, C.R.,
    2. Collins, A.C.,
    3. Nair, V.R.,
    4. Stamm, C.E.,
    5. Marciano, D.K.,
    6. Graviss, E.A.
    (2016) Heme oxygenase-1 regulates inflammation and mycobacterial survival in human macrophages during Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. J. Immunol. 196, 4641–4649 doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1500434
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Zacharia, V.M.,
    2. Manzanillo, P.S.,
    3. Nair, V.R.,
    4. Marciano, D.K.,
    5. Kinch, L.N.,
    6. Grishin, N.V.
    (2013) Cor, a Novel carbon monoxide resistance gene, is essential for Mycobacterium tuberculosis pathogenesis. mBio 4, e00721-00713 doi:10.1128/mBio.00721-13
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. ↵
    1. Southam, H.M.,
    2. Butler, J.A.,
    3. Chapman, J.A. and
    4. Poole, R.K.
    (2017) The microbiology of ruthenium complexes. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 71, 1–96 doi:10.1016/bs.ampbs.2017.03.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    1. Wallace, J.L.,
    2. Ferraz, J.G. and
    3. Muscara, M.N.
    (2012) Hydrogen sulfide: an endogenous mediator of resolution of inflammation and injury. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 17, 58–67 doi:10.1089/ars.2011.4351
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. ↵
    1. Yang, G.D. and
    2. Wu, L.Y.
    (2017) Trend in H2S biology and medicine research — a bibliometric analysis. Molecules 22, E2087 doi:10.3390/molecules22122087
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. ↵
    1. Pal, V.K.,
    2. Bandyopadhyay, P. and
    3. Singh, A.
    (2018) Hydrogen sulfide in physiology and pathogenesis of bacteria and viruses. IUBMB Life 70, 393–410 doi:10.1002/iub.1740
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. ↵
    1. Shibuya, N.,
    2. Koike, S.,
    3. Tanaka, M.,
    4. Ishigami-Yuasa, M.,
    5. Kimura, Y.,
    6. Ogasawara, Y.
    (2013) A novel pathway for the production of hydrogen sulfide from d-cysteine in mammalian cells. Nat. Commun. 4, 1366 doi:10.1038/ncomms2371
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Shatalin, K.,
    2. Shatalina, E.,
    3. Mironov, A. and
    4. Nudler, E.
    (2011) H2s: a universal defense against antibiotics in bacteria. Science 334, 986–990 doi:10.1126/science.1209855
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    1. Sawa, T.,
    2. Ono, K.,
    3. Tsutsuki, H.,
    4. Zhang, T.,
    5. Ida, T.,
    6. Nishida, M.
    (2018) Reactive cysteine persulphides: occurrence, biosynthesis, antioxidant activity, methodologies, and bacterial persulphide signalling. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 72, 1–28 doi:10.1016/bs.ampbs.2018.01.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    1. Tomasova, L.,
    2. Konopelski, P. and
    3. Ufnal, M.
    (2016) Gut bacteria and hydrogen sulfide: the new old players in circulatory system homeostasis. Molecules 21, E1558 doi:10.3390/molecules21111558
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. ↵
    1. Forte, E.,
    2. Borisov, V.B.,
    3. Falabella, M.,
    4. Colaco, H.G.,
    5. Tinajero-Trejo, M.,
    6. Poole, R.K.
    (2016) The terminal oxidase cytochrome bd promotes sulfide-resistant bacterial respiration and growth. Sci. Rep. 6, 23788 doi:10.1038/srep23788
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. ↵
    1. Mason, M.G.,
    2. Shepherd, M.,
    3. Nicholls, P.,
    4. Dobbin, P.S.,
    5. Dodsworth, K.S.,
    6. Poole, R.K.
    (2009) Cytochrome bd confers nitric oxide resistance to Escherichia coli. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5, 94–96 doi:10.1038/nchembio.135
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  86. ↵
    1. Fu, L.H.,
    2. Wei, Z.Z.,
    3. Hu, K.D.,
    4. Hu, L.Y.,
    5. Li, Y.H.,
    6. Chen, X.Y.
    (2018) Hydrogen sulfide inhibits the growth of Escherichia coli through oxidative damage. J. Microbiol. 56, 238–245 doi:10.1007/s12275-018-7537-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. ↵
    1. Mironov, A.,
    2. Seregina, T.,
    3. Nagornykh, M.,
    4. Luhachack, L.G.,
    5. Korolkova, N.,
    6. Lopes, L.E.
    (2017) Mechanism of H2S-mediated protection against oxidative stress in Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 6022–6027 doi:10.1073/pnas.1703576114
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. ↵
    1. Peng, H.,
    2. Zhang, Y.,
    3. Palmer, L.D.,
    4. Kehl-Fie, T.E.,
    5. Skaar, E.P.,
    6. Trinidad, J.C.
    (2017) Hydrogen sulfide and reactive sulfur species impact proteome S-sulfhydration and global virulence regulation in Staphylococcus aureus. ACS Infect. Dis. 3, 744–755 doi:10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00090
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. ↵
    1. Kimura, Y.,
    2. Toyofuku, Y.,
    3. Koike, S.,
    4. Shibuya, N.,
    5. Nagahara, N.,
    6. Lefer, D.
    (2015) Identification of H2S3 and H2S produced by 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase in the brain. Sci. Rep. 5, 14774 doi:10.1038/srep14774
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Shimizu, T.,
    2. Shen, J.,
    3. Fang, M.,
    4. Zhang, Y.,
    5. Hori, K.,
    6. Trinidad, J.C.
    (2017) Sulfide-responsive transcriptional repressor SqrR functions as a master regulator of sulfide-dependent photosynthesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 2355–2360 doi:10.1073/pnas.1614133114
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    1. Luebke, J.L.,
    2. Shen, J.,
    3. Bruce, K.E.,
    4. Kehl-Fie, T.E.,
    5. Peng, H.,
    6. Skaar, E.P.
    (2014) The CsoR-like sulfurtransferase repressor (CstR) is a persulfide sensor in Staphylococcus aureus. Mol. Microbiol. 94, 1343–1360 doi:10.1111/mmi.12835
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top

October 2018

Volume: 46 Issue: 5

Biochemical Society Transactions: 46 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author

Actions

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Biochemical Society Transactions.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Do nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide really qualify as ‘gasotransmitters’ in bacteria?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Biochemical Society Transactions
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Biochemical Society Transactions web site.
Share
Do nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide really qualify as ‘gasotransmitters’ in bacteria?
Lauren K. Wareham, Hannah M. Southam, Robert K. Poole
Biochemical Society Transactions Oct 2018, 46 (5) 1107-1118; DOI: 10.1042/BST20170311
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Do nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide really qualify as ‘gasotransmitters’ in bacteria?
Lauren K. Wareham, Hannah M. Southam, Robert K. Poole
Biochemical Society Transactions Oct 2018, 46 (5) 1107-1118; DOI: 10.1042/BST20170311

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Request Permissions
Save to my folders

View Full PDF

 Open in Utopia Docs
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction: Don't shoot the messenger!
    • The eukaryotic exemplars: NO, CO and H2S
    • NO in microbes: gasotransmitter or not?
    • NO sensing and signalling
    • CO sensing in microbes?
    • H2S sensing and signalling in microbes
    • Conclusions
    • Funding
    • Competing Interests
    • References
  • Figures
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Keywords

carbon monoxide
cellular signalling
gasotransmitters
hydrogen sulfide
nitric oxide

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Portland Press Homepage
  • Publish With Us
  • Advertising
  • Technical Support
  • Clinical Science
  • Biochemical Journal
  • Biochemical Society Transactions
  • Bioscience Reports
  • Essays in Biochemistry
  • Emerging Topics in Life Sciences
  • Neuronal Signaling
  • Biochemical Society Symposia
  • Cell Signalling Biology

Portland Press Limited
Charles Darwin House
12 Roger Street
London WC1N 2JU
Email: editorial@portlandpress.com

The Biochemical Society