Sulfide induces phosphate release from polyphosphate in cultures of a marine Beggiatoa strain

Sulfur bacteria such as Beggiatoa or Thiomargarita have a particularly high capacity for storage because of their large size. In addition to sulfur and nitrate, these bacteria also store phosphorus in the form of polyphosphate. Thiomargarita namibiensis has been shown to release phosphate from internally stored polyphosphate in pulses creating steep peaks of phosphate in the sediment and thereby inducing the precipitation of phosphorus-rich minerals. Large sulfur bacteria populate sediments at the sites of recent phosphorite formation and are found as fossils in ancient phosphorite deposits. Therefore, it can be assumed that this physiology contributes to the removal of bioavailable phosphorus from the marine system and thus is important for the global phosphorus cycle. We investigated under defined laboratory conditions which parameters stimulate the decomposition of polyphosphate and the release of phosphate in a marine Beggiatoa strain. Initially, we tested phosphate release in response to anoxia and high concentrations of acetate, because acetate is described as the relevant stimulus for phosphate release in activated sludge. To our surprise, the Beggiatoa strain did not release phosphate in response to this treatment. Instead, we could clearly show that increasing sulfide concentrations and anoxia resulted in a decomposition of polyphosphate. This physiological reaction is a yet unknown mode of bacterial polyphosphate usage and provides a new explanation for high phosphate concentrations in sulfidic marine sediments.     

Enhancer of Polycomb is a suppressor of position-effect variegation in Drosophila melanogaster.

Polycomb group (PcG) genes of Drosophila are negative regulators of homeotic gene expression required for maintenance of determination. Sequence similarity between Polycomb and Su(var)205 led to the suggestion that PcG genes and modifiers of position-effect variegation (PEV) might function analogously in the establishment of chromatin structure. If PcG proteins participate directly in the same process that leads to PEV, PcG mutations should suppress PEV. We show that mutations in E(Pc), an unusual member of the PcG, suppress PEV of four variegating rearrangements: In(l)wm4, B(SV), T(2;3)Sb(V) and In(2R)bw(VDe2). Using reversion of a Pelement insertion, deficiency mapping, and recombination mapping as criteria, homeotic effects and suppression of PEV associated with E(Pc) co-map. Asx is an enhancer of PEV, whereas nine other PcG loci do not affect PEV. These results support the conclusion that there are fewer similarities between PcG genes and modifiers of PEV than previously supposed. However, E(Pc) appears to be an important link between the two groups. We discuss why Asx might act as an enhancer of PEV.     

Changes in the Activity of the Maturation-Promoting Factor Are Correlated with Those of a Major Cyclic AMP and Calcium-Independent Protein Kinase During the First Mitotic Cell Cycles in the Early Starfish Embryo

Many studies suggest that MPF activation depends on protein phosphorylation or that MPF is itself a protein kinase. In the present report, cyclic variations of MPF activity have been correlated in vivo with changes in the extent of protein phosphorylation or in vitro with changes of a major protein kinase during the first cell cycles of fertilized starfish eggs. This cycling protein kinase neither requires cAMP nor Ca²⁺. Neither colchicine nor aphidicoline, which inhibits cleavage and chromosome replication respectively, was found to suppress the synchronous and cyclic variations of both MPF and protein kinase activities. Protein synthesis was found to be required for both MPF and protein kinase activities to reappear after their simultaneous drop at the time of mitotic or meiotic cleavages. Production of either MPF or protein kinase activities is not the immediate result of protein synthesis since there is a delay at each cell cycle between the time when protein synthesis is required and the time when both MPF and protein kinase activities are produced. This suggests that both MPF and protein kinase activities might involve some post-translational modification of a precursor protein synthesized during the preceeding cell cycle.