Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Oct 22;19(10):e0309988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309988

Evidence for endogenous hydrogen peroxide production by E. coli fatty acyl-CoA dehydrogenase

Chaiyos Sirithanakorn 1,2,*, James A Imlay 2
Editor: Vipin Chandra Kalia3
PMCID: PMC11495604  PMID: 39436877

Abstract

Aerobic organisms continuously generate internal superoxide and hydrogen peroxide, which can damage enzymes and impair growth. To avoid this problem cells maintain high levels of superoxide dismutases, catalases, and peroxidases. Surprisingly, we do not know the primary sources of these reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells. However, in vitro studies have shown that flavoenzymes can inadvertently transfer electrons to oxygen. Therefore, it seems plausible that substantial ROS may be generated when large metabolic fluxes flow through flavoproteins. Such a situation may arise during the catabolism of fatty acids. Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (FadE) is a flavoprotein involved in each turn of the beta-oxidation cycle. In the present study the catabolism of dodecanoic acid specifically impaired the growth of strains that lack enzymes to scavenge hydrogen peroxide. The defect was absent from fadE mutants. Direct measurements confirmed that the beta-oxidation pathway amplified the rate of intracellular hydrogen peroxide formation. Scavenging-proficient cells did not display the FadE-dependent growth defect. Those cells also did not induce the peroxide stress response during dodecanoate catabolism, indicating that the basal defenses are sufficient to cope with moderately elevated peroxide formation. In vitro work still is needed to test whether the ROS evolve specifically from the FadE flavin site and to determine whether superoxide as well as peroxide is released. At present such experiments are challenging because the natural redox partner of FadE has not been identified. This study supports the hypothesis that the degree of internal ROS production can depend upon the type of active metabolism inside cells.

Introduction

The discoveries of catalase and of superoxide dismutase were adventitious: their discoverers had no reason to expect that such enzymes would exist, because their substrates, H2O2 and O2-, were not known to be involved in biology [1, 2]. However, the investigators quickly inferred that these oxygen species must arise inside cells and be capable of damaging the organism. This prediction proved to be correct. In 1986 Carlioz and Touati engineered a strain of E. coli that lacked its two cytoplasmic superoxide dismutases [3]. The mutant grew at normal rates under anaerobic conditions, but it exhibited severe defects in oxic medium. Similar results were subsequently obtained using mutants that lacked both catalase and NADH peroxidase (AhpCF), the major scavengers of hydrogen peroxide [4].

The growth defects of both strains included an inability to synthesize aromatic and branched-chain amino acids, plus a failure to catabolize non-fermentable carbon sources. These defects arose because both O2- and H2O2 disable enzymes that have solvent-exposed iron cofactors [5]. These species oxidize the metals, triggering their dissociation from the enzyme and the loss of activity. Such enzymes exist in each of the vulnerable pathways.

The existence of these phenotypes confirmed that O2- and H2O2 are formed inside aerobic cells. The efflux of H2O2 from catalase/peroxidase-deficient cells (katG katE ahpCF) was subsequently quantified, revealing that H2O2 arises inside air-saturated, glucose-fed E. coli at a rate of 10–15 μM/s [6]. A subset of this H2O2 presumably is a by-product of the formation of O2-, which is then dismutated to H2O2.

However, it is not understood how these reactive oxygen species are generated. The rate of intracellular H2O2 production rises in rough proportion to the oxygen concentration; these first-order kinetics contrast with the saturable Michaelis-Menten kinetics that would be expected if H2O2 were generated by an oxygen-binding enzyme [7]. Thus, workers presume that these reactive oxygen species (ROS) are generated when oxygen accidentally collides with an electron donor and chemically oxidizes it. Indeed, hyperoxia imposes upon wild-type cells many of the same phenotypes that were exhibited under normoxia by scavenger-less mutants [8].

Although oxygen is broadly regarded as a strong oxidant, its chemical reduction is not easy. Molecular oxygen is a diradical, with two unpaired electrons in spin-aligned orbitals (Fig 1). In contrast, most organic molecules contain spin-paired electrons. The rules of quantum mechanics dictate that electron transfer to the diradical species can occur only in single-electron steps [9]. This restriction greatly suppresses the reactivity of oxygen, because its affinity for the first electron is low: Eo’ = −0.16 V. For this reason, molecular oxygen cannot spontaneously oxidize the amino acids, lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids that constitute the bulk of cell material. Instead, electron transfer to oxygen requires a good univalent electron donor. Inside cells univalent redox reactions are mediated by flavins, metal centers, and quinones, and the search for ROS sources has therefore focused upon them.

Fig 1. Flavin oxidation can be an intracellular source of both O2- and H2O2.

Fig 1

Molecular oxygen can abstract a single electron from dihydroflavin, forming a caged pair of O2- and flavosemiquinone. If O2- dissociates (left pathway), a second oxygen molecule will accept the remaining electron, yielding a second molecule of O2-. Cellular superoxide dismutase converts these molecules to H2O2. Alternatively, after a spin inversion (right pathway), O2- can combine with flavosemiquinone to form a peroxy adduct, which upon hydrolysis releases H2O2.

Soon after the discovery of superoxide dismutase, Vince Massey and colleagues reported that flavoenzymes can adventitiously transfer electrons to oxygen, generating superoxide [10]. The rates at which they did so varied over orders of magnitude, indicating that structural or electronic features of the enzyme have a strong influence upon this behavior of the flavin. Soon after, studies of the mitochondrial respiratory chain revealed that if the catalytic cycle of the bc1 complex is stalled by inhibitors, its semiquinone intermediates also leak electrons to oxygen [11]. Both findings supported the prediction that these flavin and quinone cofactors could be sources of ROS.

Efforts have been made to pinpoint the main contributors inside living cells. Because the respiratory chain features a large electron flux through flavins, quinones, and metal centers, respiration was expected to be the primary source of ROS in aerobic cells. Indeed, respiring membrane vesicles from E. coli release small amounts of O2- and H2O2. Dissection of the chain pinpointed two primary sites of leakage. The first was NADH dehydrogenase II, a simple enzyme whose FAD cofactor receives a hydride anion from NADH and then normally transfers the electrons consecutively to a bound molecule of ubiquinone [12]. The FADH2 moiety turned out to be the site of accidental transfer to oxygen. This reaction generated superoxide, but most of the nascent superoxide immediately abstracted the second electron from the flavosemiquinone, so that more H2O2 than O2- exited the active site.

A second source of ROS proved to be fumarate reductase [13]. The enzyme is synthesized under anoxic conditions, as its role is to transfer electrons received from quinones travel through three integral iron-sulfur clusters to a superficial flavin, which then transfers a hydride anion to fumarate. The enzyme may encounter oxygen when erstwhile anaerobic cells enter an oxic habitat. The study showed that when oxygen collides with the reduced FADH2, a mixture of O2- and H2O2 is formed. Growth studies confirmed that fumarate reductase is the predominant source of both O2- and H2O2 in the special situation of bacterial movement into an oxic environment [14].

However, the respiratory chain appears not to be the major source of ROS inside cells that are steadily aerated. Deletion of the NADH dehydrogenases, which deliver electrons into the chain, eliminated ROS production by membrane vesicles but had no apparent impact upon overall H2O2 formation by whole cells [15]. Some intracellular H2O2 is known to be produced by aspartate oxidase, a fumarate reductase homolog that initiates NAD biosynthetic pathway, and a minor amount is generated by the oxidation of the menaquinone pool [16]. But the majority of the H2O2 produced in E. coli is unaccounted for. This remains one of the major unanswered questions in the field of oxidative stress.

In this study we examined whether acyl-CoA dehydrogenase, a flavoenzyme integral to fatty acid catabolism, might be predisposed to autoxidation. This enzyme is believed to transfer electrons from fatty acyl-CoA substrates to a putative electron-transfer flavoprotein, which then delivers them to the respiratory chain [17, 18]. We observed that when the dehydrogenase, encoded by FadE, is strongly expressed, it elevates the rate of cellular H2O2 production. This result contributes to the consensus that flavoenzymes are likely sites of ROS formation in vivo, and it suggests that cells may experience higher levels of oxidative stress when their catabolic strategy involves high electron flux through such enzymes.

Experimental procedures

Bacterial strains, and growth conditions

Bacterial strains and oligonucleotide primers used in this study are indicated in Table 1. Mutant alleles were transferred to strains by standard P1 transduction [19]. Transductants were confirmed by colony PCR (see Table 1). During constructions, bacterial strains were routinely maintained in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth [20] or agar supplemented with the appropriate antibiotics. Experimental media used M9 salts [20], 0.2% casamino acids, 0.5 mM tryptophan, and 1 μg/ml thiamine, and contained 0.4% glycerol and/or 50 μM dodecanoic acid as carbon sources, as indicated. A 50 mM stock solution of dodecanoic acid (Sigma) was prepared in ethanol before dilution into the working media. The final ethanol concentration (0.1%) did not affect bacterial growth.

Table 1. Bacterial strains, and oligonucleotide primers.

bacterial strains or Primers General description or relevant genotype References
E. coli Strains:
NEB 5-alpha fhuA2 (argF-lacZ)U169 phoA glnV44 80 (lacZ)M15 gyrA96 recA1 relA1 endA1 thi-1 hsdR17 New England Biolabs
MG1655 Wild type E. coli K-12 Lab stock
JWC268 ΔfadE of MG1655 (KanR) Lab stock
381 RW11 ΔfadR::Tn10 (TetR) Lab stock
AL441 As MG1655 ΔlacZ1 attλ::[pSJ501:: katG’-lacZ+]~cat (ChlR) [21]
AL495 (HPX-) Δ(katG17::Tn10)1 (ahpC-ahpF’)del kan::’ahpF Δ(katE12::Tn10)1
ΔlacZ1 attλ::[pSJ501:: katG’-lacZ+]~cat (KanR, ChlR)
[49]
ΔfadE AL441 ΔfadE, ΔlacZ1 attλ::[pSJ501:: katG’-lacZ+]~cat (KanR, ChlR) P1vir(JWC268)×AL441
ΔfadR AL441 ΔfadR, ΔlacZ1 attλ::[pSJ501:: katG’-lacZ+]~cat (TetR, ChlR) P1vir(381 RW11)×AL441
ΔRE AL441 ΔfadR, ΔfadE, ΔlacZ1 attλ::[pSJ501:: katG’-lacZ+]~cat (TetR, KanR, ChlR) P1vir(381 RW11)× ΔfadE AL441
AL427 Δ(katG17::Tn10)1 Δ(ahpCF1::cat)1 Δ(katE12::Tn10)1 (Tets, Kans, Chls) [49]
ΔfadR AL495 ΔfadR, Δ(katG17::Tn10)1 (ahpC-ahpF’)del kan::’ahpF Δ(katE12::Tn10)1, ΔlacZ1 attλ::[pSJ501:: katG’-lacZ+]~cat (TetR, KanR, ChlR) P1vir(381 RW11)×AL495
ΔfadE AL427 ΔfadE, Δ(katG17::Tn10)1 Δ(ahpCF1::cat)1 Δ(katE12::Tn10)1 (KanR) P1vir(JWC268)×AL427
ΔfadE SK/O ΔfadE, Δ(katG17::Tn10)1 Δ(ahpCF1::cat)1 Δ(katE12::Tn10)1 ΔlacZ1 attλ::[pSJ501:: katG’-lacZ+]~cat (KanR, ChlR) P1vir(AL441)× ΔfadE AL427
ΔRE SK/O ΔfadR, ΔfadE, Δ(katG17::Tn10)1 Δ(ahpCF1::cat)1 Δ(katE12::Tn10)1 ΔlacZ1 attλ::[pSJ501:: katG’-lacZ+]~cat (KanR, ChlR, TetR) P1vir(381 RW11)× ΔfadE SK/O
Primers
+200 FadE FP 5’ GTG TAC CGG ATA CCG CCA AA 3’ This study
-200 FadE RP 5’ TGA CGG GGC TGT TCT CG 3’ This study
FadR-KOFP+161 5’ AAC GGT CAG GCA GGA 3’ This study
FadR-KORP-200 5’ ATA ATC GCG CAC CGC 3’ This study

ß-Galactosidase reporter assay

Whether FadE makes enough H2O2 to activate the OxyR regulon was tested using a katG-lacZ transcriptional fusion. AL441 is a derivative of the wild-type strain MG1655; it includes the fusion plus a deletion of the native katG allele. This and its derivative fadR and fadE strains were cultured overnight in M9 medium containing glycerol. The resultant stationary phase cultures were diluted to 1% into M9 medium supplemented with 0.2% casamino acids, 0.5 mM tryptophan, and 1 μg/ml thiamine. The cultures were grown with shaking at 37 C to an OD600 of approximately 0.2. The cells were collected by centrifugation, washed twice with M9 salt solution, and subsequently diluted to OD600 of about 0.025 in the M9 based media as described above with various carbon sources (glycerol, glycerol + dodecanoate, or only dodecanoate). The cultures were grown at 37 C with shaking for two to three generations. ß-Galactosidase activity was then examined. The cells were harvested through centrifugation, washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), resuspended in Z buffer, lysed with lysozyme, and assayed for β-galactosidase activity at 420 nm by spectrophotometer [20]. The data were collected from five independent colonies with two technical replicates apiece.

Measurement of intracellular hydrogen peroxide production

To quantify the production of intracellular hydrogen peroxide production, the scavenging-deficient E. coli strain (AL495, HPX- strain) was used as a parental strain [21]. Deletion alleles of fadR and fadE were introduced to the AL495 strain by standard P1 transduction procedure [19] and subsequently confirmed by colony PCR. Primers specific to each gene are indicated in Table 1. The level of hydrogen peroxide released by sterile culture medium was also examined. All bacterial cells were initially streaked on standard M9 medium (CSH protocol) with glucose in a Coy anaerobic chamber. Overnight cultures were then grown in the same medium in the anaerobic environment. Cells were then directly inoculated at 1% dilution into oxic M9 glycerol and dodecanoate media supplemented with 0.2% casamino acids, 0.5 mM tryptophan, and 1 μg/ml thiamine, and this preculture was grown to OD600 approximately 0.2. These log-phase cells were collected by centrifugation at 4000 x g for 5 min. at room temperature, resuspended in the same fresh media, and finally diluted into the same fresh media to OD600 at an OD600 of approximately 0.02. These cultures were further incubated with shaking at 37C. At selected time points, 1-ml aliquots were removed, the cells were pelleted by 1 min. centrifugation in a microfuge, and the hydrogen peroxide content of the supernatant was examined by the Amplex Red/horseradish peroxidase method [22]. Fluorescence was measured in a Shimadzu RF Mini-150 fluorometer and converted to H2O2 concentration using a curve obtained from standard samples in the same assay medium. The secondary growth of various E. coli strains at the same selected time point was also examined over 42 min. The mean results were calculated from four independent biological samples. As in previous studies, the levels of H2O2 production were undetectable in wild-type cells containing catalase and peroxidase.

Bacterial growth kinetics

The growth of wild-type, ΔfadR, HPX-, and HPX- ΔfadR derivatives of MG1655 were determined by spectrophotometer at 600 nm. The culture conditions were equivalent to those detailed in measurements of H2O2 production.

Reactivity of dihydrolipoic acid with hydrogen peroxide in vitro

The ability of reduced lipoic acid (dihydrolipoate) to scavenge H2O2 was measured in vitro. The total reaction (2 ml) contained 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, 1 mM of the iron chelator diethylenetriaminpentaacetic acid (DTPA), 10 μM H2O2, and 100 μl of sample. The DTPA was included to avoid any iron-catalyzed chemistry. At timepoints 50 μl of 0.25 mM Amplex UltraRed (AR) and 100 μl of 0.25 mg/ml HRP (Sigma P8250) were added. Reactions were fast, and the final fluorescence was examined after 20 seconds by fluorometer (Shimadzu model RF-mini150), using 520 nm and 620 nm filters for excitation and emission wavelengths, respectively [22]. The concentration of hydrogen peroxide was quantified using a standard curve with known amount of H2O2. Dithiothreitol (DTT) was used as a positive control, as its thiol groups are known to react with H2O2.

Results and discussion

Flavoenzymes have repeatedly been observed to transfer electrons from their reduced flavins to molecular oxygen, generating a mixture of superoxide and H2O2 [5]. This observation makes good chemical sense, as flavins are good univalent electron donors, and they are typically situated at the enzyme surface where collisions with dissolved oxygen are likely. However, the contribution of any particular flavoenzyme to the net ROS production inside the cell depends additionally on the titer of the enzyme. Central metabolism involves much higher substrate fluxes than do other pathways, and accordingly its enzymes are abundant. Therefore, it seemed plausible that FadE, an enzyme which participates in the degradation of fatty acids as a main carbon source, could make a substantial contribution to endogenous ROS production. The placement of FadE in this process is shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Overview of the pathway of long-chain fatty acid degradation.

Fig 2

FadE (acyl-CoA dehydrogenase) is marked with an asterisk. In this figure it transfers two electrons to the quinone pool via Electron Transfer Flavoprotein (ETF). However, it is possible that ETF is absent from E. coli and FadE is a membrane protein that reduces quinones directly.

The rate of internal H2O2 production can be directly measured using E. coli mutants that lack H2O2-scavenging enzymes [15]. Any H2O2 formed inside the cell flows across the cell membrane and into the culture medium, where its progressive accumulation can be measured. The external H2O2 concentration eventually reaches a steady-state level, as there is slow residual scavenging by the cytochrome oxidases of the cell, which accept H2O2 as a poor pseudosubstrate that competes with molecular oxygen [23]. Both the initial rate of H2O2 efflux, and the final steady state, are good measures of the rate of its internal production.

The rates of H2O2 formation were measured when cells were fed a mixture of glycerol and dodecanoic acid. Dodecanoic acid is a soluble substrate for the fatty acid degradation pathway; however, it cannot serve as sole carbon source for Hpx- strains, because the acetyl-CoA produced by this process is inefficiently catabolized by the TCA cycle of these cells, due to the H2O2 sensitivity of aconitase and fumarase. Glycerol can be degraded independently of the TCA cycle, and unlike glucose its presence does not shut down expression of the fatty acid catabolic genes.

We observed that H2O2 production was substantially elevated in a fadR mutant, which strongly induces fatty-acid degrading enzymes [18, 24], including FadE (Fig 3). The rate returned to that of a FadR+ strain when fadE was absent. These data show that FadE can be a predominant source of H2O2 when it is fully induced.

Fig 3. FadE-dependent H2O2 production by whole cells.

Fig 3

Mutants lacking the H2O2-scavenging enzymes catalase and peroxidase (HPX-) were suspended in medium containing dodecanoic acid, and H2O2 release was monitored. The fadR mutant fully induces the fatty-acid degradation pathway, including FadE.

The FadE-expressing strain exhibits poor growth in the Hpx- background

Because H2O2 damages key enzymes in amino-acid biosynthetic pathways, casamino acids were supplemented in the growth medium. Nevertheless, an Hpx- strain grows slightly more slowly than scavenging-proficient cells. That growth defect was substantially worse for the fadR mutant (Fig 4). The defect was especially pronounced when cells were resuspended at low cell density, when H2O2 clearance by respiration in minimized. This defect was ameliorated in a strain lacking FadE. The fadR mutation had little effect upon growth in a scavenging-proficient strain. Thus, the growth phenotype supported the notion that FadE can be an important source of H2O2.

Fig 4. Non-scavenging mutants grow poorly when catabolizing dodecanoic acid.

Fig 4

(A). At time zero cells were shifted to medium containing glycerol and dodecanoic acid. (B) Even after adaptation to the medium, the fadR mutant exhibited slower growth.

Scavenging enzymes keep FadE-derived H2O2 at non-threatening levels

E. coli uses the OxyR transcription factor to sense high levels of H2O2 that might debilitate the cell [25, 26]. When activated, OxyR induces a handful of defensive systems, including catalase G, encoded by katG. Workers have relied upon katG-lacZ transcriptional fusions as sensitive reporters of H2O2 stress. These fusions are induced > ten-fold in glucose-grown Hpx- strains, whose 1 micromolar intracellular H2O2 is much higher than the 50 nM level inside wild-type cells [27].

The transcriptional fusion was inserted into a scavenger-competent (catalase/peroxidase-proficient) strain. Mutations in fadR and/or fadE were introduced. When these strains were cultured in media containing glycerol and/or dodecanoate, the level of katG-lacZ expression was similar (Fig 5). It appears that basal levels of catalase and peroxidase are sufficient to protect the cell from any H2O2 generated by FadE.

Fig 5. Beta-oxidation does not generate enough H2O2 to induce the OxyR regulon.

Fig 5

Scavenging-proficient cells were cultured with glycerol and/or dodecanoic acid as a carbon source, and the expression of an OxyR-controlled katG-lacZ fusion was monitored. Expression in a catalase/peroxidase-deficient mutant (HPX-) is shown for comparison.

Lipoic acid does not degrade H2O2

Fatty acid catabolism requires high-level expression of enzymes of the TCA cycle. Because 2-oxoglutarate dehydrogenase requires lipoic acid as a cofactor, lipoic acid is substantially synthesized during periods of fatty acid degradation. Other workers have reported that the reduced form of lipoic acid, dihydrolipoamide, has antioxidant properties, including the abilities to scavenge O2- [28], to chelate metal ions [29], and to regenerate other scavenging biomolecules such as glutathione, vitamin C, and vitamin E [2931]. There was some disagreement as to whether lipoate might also degrade H2O2; the presence of its dithiol moieties made this plausible.

This idea was tested by direct measurements of H2O2 during incubation with dihydrolipoate. Low-micromolar concentrations were used, in contrast to previous experiments, to more closely mimic physiological doses. Fig 6 shows that dihydrolipoate was ineffective at H2O2 degradation, in contrast to dithiothreitol, a dithiol whose ability to degrade H2O2 has been established [21]. The difference is surprising, given that the reported reduction potentials of dithiothreitol (-0.33 V) and lipoic acid (-0.29 to -0.33 V) are similar [31]. In any case, lipoate synthesis is unlikely to protect cells from oxidants formed during fatty acid catabolism.

Fig 6. Dihydrolipoic acid (DHLA) does not degrade H2O2.

Fig 6

Scavenging by dithiothreitol (DTT) is shown for comparison (B).

The major sources of endogenous ROS in bacteria are unclear. This study indicates that FadE activity promotes H2O2 production inside cells. The simplest explanation would be that the reduced FADH2 intermediate of FadE itself inadvertently transfers some electrons directly to oxygen, likely producing a mixture of superoxide and H2O2. An alternative model, suggested by others, is that the catabolism of fatty acids increases the flux of NADH to the standard NADH dehydrogenase-initiated respiratory chain, and that electron leakage from the chain will elevate cellular ROS [32]. The present data do not rule out this second model; however, our prior work indicated that electron leakage from the components of the normal aerobic chain is minimal [15].

The FadE enzyme belongs to the general family of acyl-CoA dehydrogenases (ACDs). These enzymes are ubiquitous in the biota and are invariably required for fatty acid catabolism. In some organisms, including humans, other ACD family members participate in the oxidative degradation of leucine, valine, isoleucine, lysine, and tryptophan. In each case the ACD accomplishes the α,β-desaturation of CoA thioesters. In well-characterized mitochondrial enzymes, once the ACD FAD cofactor receives a hydride anion from substrate, it then consecutively transfers the two electrons to the flavin of a bound electron transfer flavoprotein partner (ETF); in turn, ETF transfers the electrons to the electron-transport chain. A single mitochondrial ETF protein acts as a hub that accepts electrons from a variety of ACD family members [33]. Mechanistic details of ACDs and their interactions with ETF have been reported [34].

Electron transfer to oxygen by eukaryotic ACDs

The physical structures of eukaryotic ACDs have evolved to suppress electron leakage to oxygen. The reduced FADH2 cofactor is largely buried in polypeptide, and electron transfer to its proper substrate, ETF, occurs over distance by a typical electron hopping event. In biochemical assays ETF can be replaced by high-potential artificial electron acceptors. The radical status of molecular oxygen means that in principle it is similarly capable of receiving electrons in this way; however, its univalent potential is low, and this quality, plus its inability to closely approach the flavin, ensure oxidase activity is minimal. Interestingly, investigators have found that ACD releases electrons to oxygen more easily if the trans-2-enoyl-CoA substrate is absent, indicating that in this circumstance molecular oxygen gains more access to the FADH2 by entering the substrate cavity; in this view its proximity compensates somewhat for its lower potential. The usual catalytic cycle, however, ensures that electrons move to ETF before product dissociates—thereby avoiding ROS formation.

This analysis is supported by the contrary behavior of acyl-CoA oxidases, a related family of enzymes in which acyl-CoA dehydrogenation proceeds as with ACDs but is followed by stoichiometric electron transfer to molecular oxygen. The product is H2O2, and so these enzymes are localized in catalase-filled peroxisomes. These enzymes do not bind ETF, and their high turnover number to oxygen is enabled by markedly looser polypeptide packing around the flavin, providing greater exposure to solvent [35]. A similar effect has been achieved by mutagenesis that relieves protein packing around the ACD flavin [36]. These observations all show that ACD flavins are chemically capable of generating some level of ROS, but that protein structure can suppress it.

It is in this context that E. coli FadE should be considered. Unlike eukaryotic cells, while E. coli oxidizes fatty acids, it does not catabolize branched-chain amino acids, and it degrades lysine and tryptophan by other routes. The ETF-hub model therefore does not apply, and in fact no ETF partner to FadE has been identified in E. coli, allowing the possibility that none is used and that FadE associates directly with the chain [18]. Indeed, protein-localization prediction programs have suggested that E. coli FadE may itself be embedded in the cytoplasmic membrane, although this prediction is not unanimous [37]. Therefore, it is unclear whether the key structural and kinetic features of the eukaryotic enzymes—including their devices to avoid ROS production—also pertain to this bacterial enzyme.

Unfortunately, E. coli FadE has been the subject of only limited biochemical investigation [18, 17, 38]. Alphafold [39, 40] predicts the structure shown in Fig 7A. Analysis by the MMseqs2 algorithm [41] reports that the E. coli fadE shows the high similarity to acyl-CoA oxidase 1 (ACOX-1) from C. elegans (AFDB accession number: AF-O62140-F1). The structure of ACOX-1 with bound FAD and ATP (PDB: 5K3I) presents as a homodimer. Like all other members of the acyl-CoA dehydrogenase family, it contains a catalytic glutamate residue to install the double bond at α-β position, generating enoyl-CoA as a product (Fig 7B) [34, 35]. The FAD cofactor lies at the interface of dimeric enzyme [42], enabling its exposure to the solvent and the direct generation of hydrogen peroxide. A structural similarity of FadE to ACOX-1 may support the possibility that this ACD generates ROS to a greater extent than eukarytic ACDs. In vitro studies will be needed to resolve this point—but they will require that the presence or absence of an ETF first be settled.

Fig 7. FadE structure and possible route of H2O2 production.

Fig 7

(A) Structure predicted by AlphaFold. (B) Predicted oxidation mechanism. Proton abstraction by a glutamate residue triggers transfer of a hydride anion to the adjacent FAD. The subsequent oxidation of FADH2 would proceed by either of the two routes depicted in Fig 1.

The physiological impact of a new ROS source

Hydrogen peroxide is not the sole ROS species likely to be produced during any oxidation of flavoproteins. Because molecular oxygen is constrained to accept electrons in univalent steps, dihydroflavin autoxidation produces a molecule of superoxide as the immediate product. The superoxide molecule can either exit the active site or else recombine with the adjacent flavosemiquinone to form a peroxy adduct [43]. This flavin species spontaneously hydrolyzes, yielding H2O2 and oxidized FAD. Thus, FADH2 oxidation can generate a mixture of O2- and H2O2. In enzymes that lack other redox moieties, such as aspartate oxidase and NADH dehydrogenase II, virtually no O2- leaves the active site, indicating that the peroxide route is favored. However, xanthine oxidase and fumarate reductase possess metal centers proximate to the flavin and produce much more superoxide to the bulk solution [13, 44]. Analysis suggests that the electron of the flavosemiquinone shifts to those redox centers rather than recombining with superoxide. If FadE associates with an ETF, then a similar mechanism might enable its flavin to generate intracellular O2-; if it does not, then H2O2 may be the predominant product.

The question of whether FadE releases superoxide to the cell interior carries physiological import. When grown in glucose, E. coli calibrates its titer of SOD so it is barely sufficient to suppress enzyme damage by endogenous superoxide [45]. Therefore, if the production of endogenous superoxide is greater when cells consume fatty acids, the threshold for overt injury would be approached. Two observations raise the possibility that E. coli may be buffered against this situation. First, the transcription of fadE is inhibited by phospho-ArcA, the form of the ArcA transcription factor that accumulates when the quinone pool is reduced [46]. Phospho-ArcA also inhibit transcription of sodA, encoding manganese-cofactored SOD [47]. This parallel raises the possibility that fatty acid degradation occurs concomitant with some level of SOD induction.

Second, aconitase of the TCA cycle is acutely sensitive to O2-. Gardner and Fridovich pointed out that if excess O2- is generated by TCA cycle-dependent processes, then the inactivation of aconitase might act as a circuit-breaker [48]. In the current example, excess O2- production by FadE might inactivate aconitase. The acetyl-CoA produced by fatty acid oxidation would then accumulate, and further fatty acid catabolism would stall for want of free CoA. In this speculative scheme, FadE-driven O2- formation would be suppressed until sufficient SOD were present to protect superoxide-sensitive enzymes.

The example of FadE raises the possibility that the degree of endogenous ROS stress depends upon the foodstuff and the metabolic strategy of the bacterium. The present data do not adequately test this point. Biochemical characterization of FadE, including reconstitution of its full catalytic cycle in vitro, will be needed.

Supporting information

S1 File. The tables show raw data of all experiments above.

(DOCX)

pone.0309988.s001.docx (33.6KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to John Cronan for providing guidance and resources throughout this investigation.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (No. 2566-02-16-001) to C.S. and NIH grant GM49640 To J.A.I.

References

  • 1.Loew O., A new enzyme of general occurrence in organisms. Science 1900, 11 (279), 701–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McCord J.; Fridovich I., Superoxide dismutase. An enzymic function for erythrocuprein (hemocuprein). J Biol Chem 1969, 244 (22), 6049–6055. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Carlioz A.; Touati D., Isolation of superoxide dismutase mutants in Escherichia coli: is superoxide dismutase necessary for aerobic life? EMBO J 1986, 5, 623–630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Seaver L. C.; Imlay J. A., Alkyl hydroperoxide reductase is the primary scavenger of endogenous hydrogen peroxide in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 2001, 183, 7173–7181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Imlay J. A., The molecular mechanisms and physiological consequences of oxidative stress: lessons from a model bacterium. Nat Rev Microbiol 2013, 11, 443–454. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Seaver L. C.; Imlay J. A., Hydrogen peroxide fluxes and compartmentalization inside growing Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 2001, 183, 7182–7189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Korshunov S.; Imlay J. A., Two sources of endogenous hydrogen peroxide in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 2010, 75 (6), 1389–401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Boehme D. E.; Vincent K.; Brown O. R., Oxygen and toxicity: inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis. Nature 1976, 262, 418–420. doi: 10.1038/262418a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Naqui A.; Chance B., Reactive oxygen intermediates in biochemistry. Ann Rev Biochem 1986, 55, 137–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.55.070186.001033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ballou D.; Palmer G.; Massey V., Direct demonstration of superoxide anion production during the oxidation of reduced flavin and of its catalytic decomposition by erythrocuprein. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1969, 36, 898. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(69)90288-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Boveris A.; Cadenas E.; Stoppani A. O., Role of ubiquinone in the mitochondrial generation of hydrogen peroxide. Biochem J 1976, 152, 435–444. doi: 10.1042/bj1560435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Messner K. R.; Imlay J. A., The identification of primary sites of superoxide and hydrogen peroxide formation in the aerobic respiratory chain and sulfite reductase complex of Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem 1999, 274 (15), 10119–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Messner K. R.; Imlay J. A., Mechanism of superoxide and hydrogen peroxide formation by fumarate reductase, succinate dehydrogenase, and aspartate oxidase. J Biol Chem 2002, 277 (45), 42563–71. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M204958200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Imlay J. A., A metabolic enzyme that rapidly produces superoxide, fumarate reductase of Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem 1995, 270, 19767–19777. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Seaver L. C.; Imlay J. A., Are respiratory enzymes the primary sources of intracellular hydrogen peroxide? J Biol Che. 2004, 279 (47), 48742–48750. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M408754200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Korshunov S.; Imlay J. A., Detection and quantification of superoxide formed within the periplasm of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 2006, 188 (17), 6326–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Campbell J. W.; J E Cronan J., The enigmatic Escherichia coli fadE gene is yafH. J Bacteriol 2002, 184, 3759–3764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pavoncello V.; Barras F.; Bouveret E., Degradation of exogenous fatty acids in Escherichia coli. Biomolecules 2022, 12, 1019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Thomason L. C.; Costantino N.; Court D. L., E. coli genome manipulation by P1 transduction. Curr Protocols Mol Biol 2014, 79, 1.17.1–1.17.8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Miller, J. H., Experiments in Molecular Genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory: Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., 1972.
  • 21.Li X.; Imlay J. A., Improved measurements of scant hydrogen peroxide enable experiments that define its threshold of toxicity for Escherichia coli. Free Radic Biol Med 2018, 120, 217–227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Messner K. R.; Imlay J. A., In vitro quantitation of biological superoxide and hydrogen peroxide generation. Meth Enzymol 2002, 349, 354–361. doi: 10.1016/s0076-6879(02)49351-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Khademian M.; Imlay J. A., Escherichia coli cytochrome c peroxidase is a respiratory oxidase that enables the use of hydrogen peroxide as a terminal electron acceptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2017, 114, E6922–E6931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cronan J. E., The Escherichia coli FadR transcription factor: Too much of a good thing? Mol Microbiol 2021, 115, 1080–1085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Aslund F.; Zheng M.; Beckwith J.; Storz G., Regulation of the OxyR transcription factor by hydrogen peroxide and the cellular thiol-disulfide status. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999, 96 (11), 6161–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.11.6161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zheng M.; Wang X.; Templeton L. J.; Smulski D. R.; LaRossa R. A.; Storz G., DNA microarray-mediated transcriptional profiling of the Escherichia coli response to hydrogen peroxide. J Bacteriol 2001, 183, 4562–4570. doi: 10.1128/JB.183.15.4562-4570.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liu Y.; Bauer S. C.; Imlay J. A., The YaaA protein of the Escherichia coli OxyR regulon lessens hydrogen peroxide toxicity by diminishing the amount of intracellular unincorporated iron. J Bacteriol 2011, 193, 2186–2196. doi: 10.1128/JB.00001-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Matsugo S.; Konishi T.; Matsuo D.; Tritschler H. J.; Packer L., Reevaluation of superoxide scavenging activity of dihydrolipoic acid and its analogues by chemiluminescent method using 2-methyl-6-[p-methoxyphenyl]-3,7-dihydroimidazo-[1,2-a]pyrazine-3-one (MCLA) as a superoxide probe. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1996, 227 (1), 216–20. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1996.1492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Packer L.; Witt E. H.; Tritschler H. J., alpha-Lipoic acid as a biological antioxidant. Free Radic Biol Med 1995, 19 (2), 227–50. doi: 10.1016/0891-5849(95)00017-r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Packer L.; Suzuki Y. J., Vitamin E and alpha-lipoate: role in antioxidant recycling and activation of the NF-kappa B transcription factor. Mol Aspects Med 1993, 14 (3), 229–39. doi: 10.1016/0098-2997(93)90009-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jocelyn P. C., The standard redox potential of cysteine-cystine from the thiol-disulphide exchange reaction with glutathione and lipoic acid. Eur J Biochem 1967, 2 (3), 327–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1967.tb00142.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Agrawal S.; Jaswal K.; Shiver A. L.; Balecha H.; Patra T.; Chaba R., A genome-wide screen in Escherichia coli reveals that ubiquinone is a key antioxidant from metabolism of long-chain fatty acids. J. Biol. Chem. 2017, 292, 20086–20099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Henriques B. J.; Olsen R. K. J.; Gomes C. M.; Bross P., Electron transfer flavoprotein and its role in mitochondrial energy metabolism in health and disease. Gene 2021, 776, 145407. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2021.145407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ghisla S.; Thorpe C., Acyl-CoA dehydrogenases. A mechanistic overview. Eur. J. Biochem. 2004, 271, 494–508. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1033.2003.03946.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kim J.-J. P.; Miura R., Acyl-CoA dehydrogenases and acyl-CoA oxidases. Structural basis for mechanistic similarities and differences. Eur. J. Biochem. 2004, 271, 483–493. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1033.2003.03948.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Schwander T.; Borzyskowski L. S. v.; Burgener S.; Cotrina N. S.; Erb T. J., A synthetic pathway for the fixation of carbon dioxide in vitro. Science 2016, 354, 900–904. doi: 10.1126/science.aah5237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Diaz-Mejia J. J.; Babu M.; Emili A., Computational and experimental approaches to chart the Escherichia coli cell-envelope-associated proteome and interactome. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 33, 66–97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Campbell J. W.; Morgan-Kiss R. M.; J E Cronan J., A new Escherichia coli metabolic competency: growth on fatty acids by a novel anaerobic beta-oxidation pathway. Mol. Microbiol. 2003, 47, 793–805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jumper J.; Evans R.; Pritzel A.; Figurnov T. G. M.; Ronneberger O.; Tunyasuvunakool K.; et al., Nighly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 2021, 596, 583–589. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Varadi M.; Anyango S.; Deshpande M.; Nair S.; Natassia C.; Yordanova G.; et al., AlphaFold protein structure database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models. Nucl. Acid Res. 2022, 50(D1). doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab1061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Steinegger M.; Soding J., Clustering huge protein sequence sets in linear time. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2542. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04964-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhang X.; Li K.; Jones R. A.; Bruner S. D.; Butcher R. A., Structural characterization of acyl-CoA oxidases reveals a direct link between pheromone biosynthesis and metabolic state in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016, 113 (36), 10055–60. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608262113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Massey V., Activation of molecular oxygen by flavins and flavoproteins. J. Biol. Chem. 1994, 36, 22459–22462. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hunt J.; Massey V., Purification and properties of milk xanthine dehydrogenase. JBC 1992, 267, 21479–21485. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gort A. S.; Imlay J. A., Balance between endogenous superoxide stress and antioxidant defenses. J Bacteriol 1998, 180 (6), 1402–1410. doi: 10.1128/JB.180.6.1402-1410.1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Cho B.-K.; Knight E. M.; Palsson B. O., Transcriptional regulation of the fad regulon genes of Escherichia coli by ArcA. Microbiology (Reading) 2006, 152, 2207–2219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Compan I.; Touati D., Interaction of six global transcription regulators in expression of manganese superoxide dismutase in Escherichia coli K-12. J Bacteriol 1993, 175, 1687–1696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gardner P. R.; Fridovich I., Superoxide sensitivity of the Escherichia coli aconitase. J Biol Chem 1991, 266, 19328–19333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Liu Y.; Imlay J. A., Cell death from antibiotics without the involvement of reactive oxygen species. Science 2013, 339 (6124), 1210–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1232751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Vipin Chandra Kalia

30 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-26458Evidence for endogenous hydrogen peroxide production by E. coli fatty acyl-CoA dehydrogenasePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sirithanakorn,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vipin Chandra Kalia, FNASc, FAMI

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

This study was financially supported by King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (No. 2566-02-16-001) to C.S. and NIH grant GM49640 To J.A.I.

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

We are grateful to John Cronan for providing guidance and resources throughout this investigation. This study was financially supported by King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (No. 2566-02-16-001) to C.S. and NIH grant GM49640 To J.A.I

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

This study was financially supported by King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (No. 2566-02-16-001) to C.S. and NIH grant GM49640 To J.A.I.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewers have reported that the study is interesting and needs minor revision.

You are requested to meticulously and carefully respond to the reviewers comments.

Reviewer's Comments 1:

Review comment on “Evidence for endogenous hydrogen peroxide production by E. coli fatty acyl-CoA dehydrogenase”

General comment: This is a nice piece of work on detail understanding on how superoxides and H2O2 are produced continuously in bacterial cells. Results presented in figures but not described elaborately, indeed results are given partially as in typical “results & Discussion” section, while this article has again a separate discussion section. So, it is actually better combine both sections as “Results and Discussion”, and describe a little of the Figures as a result component of the section.

Specific comment:

Lines22-23: “To avoid this problem cells maintain high levels of scavenging enzymes” provide names of a few important scavenging enzymes relevant to this study.

Lines115-116: “We observed that when the dehydrogenase, encoded by FadE, is strongly expressed, it elevates the rate of cellular H2O2 production.” Is there any information or did you try the rate of cellular H2O2 production in absence of FadE?

Line130-131: What is the source of dodecanoic acid? What concentration of ethanol was used to prepare dodecanoic acid/ and at what ratio to the LB medium ethanol was used (what would be final ethanol concentration in LB growth medium)? For H2O2 production studies in various genetic backgrounds, why you did not use WT cells along with media as controls?

Table1: write the full form of NEB. NO need to write “REF” just numbering is enough. Check for accurateness of the “Reference” column, which should have appropriate references/sources only.

Figure 6 legend, provide full forms of DTT and DHLA.

Reviewer's Comments 2:

MS # PONE-D-24-26458 intends to identify major site of ROS generation, which is ubiquitously loosely attributed to FADH2 oxidation during aerobic respiration. However, there are many oxidative pathways wherein FADH2 generates and enters the oxidative electron transport system for ATP production and electron leakage responsible for ROS generation. With the help of E. coli fadE (Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase) mutant, the generation of hydrogen peroxide has been monitored during the in vitro βoxidation of dodecanoic acid, a fatty acid, for the mutant was incapable of scavenging the generated hydrogen peroxide. The authors are inclined to believe that βoxidation generates the major source of ROS within the limits of their experimental setup. Of course, the findings are significant and prompts the further advanced work.

Experimental design and data generation is sound and appears to be reproducible. Results and Discussion are posited logically. However, the MS needs through scrutiny for standard usage of English language e.g., use “must arise” in place of “must be arise” in Line 45-46 “However, the investigators quickly inferred that these oxygen species must be arise inside cells and be capable of damaging the organism.”

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review comment on “Evidence for endogenous hydrogen peroxide production by E. coli fatty acyl-CoA dehydrogenase”

General comment: This is a nice piece of work on detail understanding on how superoxides and H2O2 are produced continuously in bacterial cells. Results presented in figures but not described elaborately, indeed results are given partially as in typical “results & Discussion” section, while this article has again a separate discussion section. So, it is actually better combine both sections as “Results and Discussion”, and describe a little of the Figures as a result component of the section.

Specific comment:

Lines22-23: “To avoid this problem cells maintain high levels of scavenging enzymes” provide names of a few important scavenging enzymes relevant to this study.

Lines115-116: “We observed that when the dehydrogenase, encoded by FadE, is strongly expressed, it elevates the rate of cellular H2O2 production.” Is there any information or did you try the rate of cellular H2O2 production in absence of FadE?

Line130-131: What is the source of dodecanoic acid? What concentration of ethanol was used to prepare dodecanoic acid/ and at what ratio to the LB medium ethanol was used (what would be final ethanol concentration in LB growth medium)? For H2O2 production studies in various genetic backgrounds, why you did not use WT cells along with media as controls?

Table1: write the full form of NEB. NO need to write “REF” just numbering is enough. Check for accurateness of the “Reference” column, which should have appropriate references/sources only.

Figure 6 legend, provide full forms of DTT and DHLA.

Reviewer #2: MS # PONE-D-24-26458 intends to identify major site of ROS generation, which is ubiquitously loosely attributed to FADH2 oxidation during aerobic respiration. However, there are many oxidative pathways wherein FADH2 generates and enters the oxidative electron transport system for ATP production and electron leakage responsible for ROS generation. With the help of E. coli fadE (Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase) mutant, the generation of hydrogen peroxide has been monitored during the in vitro βoxidation of dodecanoic acid, a fatty acid, for the mutant was incapable of scavenging the generated hydrogen peroxide. The authors are inclined to believe that βoxidation generates the major source of ROS within the limits of their experimental setup. Of course, the findings are significant and prompts the further advanced work.

Experimental design and data generation is sound and appears to be reproducible. Results and Discussion are posited logically. However, the MS needs through scrutiny for standard usage of English language e.g., use “must arise” in place of “must be arise” in Line 45-46 “However, the investigators quickly inferred that these oxygen species must be arise inside cells and be capable of damaging the organism.”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Shamim A Ansari

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 22;19(10):e0309988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309988.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Aug 2024

Response to reviewers

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-26458

Reviewer's Comments 1:

Review comment on “Evidence for endogenous hydrogen peroxide production by E. coli fatty acyl-CoA dehydrogenase”

General comment: This is a nice piece of work on detail understanding on how superoxides and H2O2 are produced continuously in bacterial cells. Results presented in figures but not described elaborately, indeed results are given partially as in typical “results & Discussion” section, while this article has again a separate discussion section. So, it is actually better combine both sections as “Results and Discussion”, and describe a little of the Figures as a result component of the section.

Response: Thank you for your reading of our manuscript. As requested, we have combined the Results and Discussion sections.

Specific comment:

Lines22-23: “To avoid this problem cells maintain high levels of scavenging enzymes” provide names of a few important scavenging enzymes relevant to this study.

Response: the phase “scavenging enzymes” has been replaced with “superoxide dismutases, catalases, and peroxidases.”

Lines115-116: “We observed that when the dehydrogenase, encoded by FadE, is strongly expressed, it elevates the rate of cellular H2O2 production.” Is there any information or did you try the rate of cellular H2O2 production in absence of FadE?

Response: We did this experiment, as demonstrated in Figure 3. As expected, the absence of fadE has no impact on H2O2 formation in a fadR+ strain, because the enzyme is not induced under those conditions. Induction—and high H2O2 production—occurs in the fadR mutant. Accordingly, Figure 4 confirms that the growth defect created by the fadR mutation is reversed when fadE is deleted.

Line130-131: What is the source of dodecanoic acid? What concentration of ethanol was used to prepare dodecanoic acid/ and at what ratio to the LB medium ethanol was used (what would be final ethanol concentration in LB growth medium)? For H2O2 production studies in various genetic backgrounds, why you did not use WT cells along with media as controls?

Response: The dodecanoic acid was purchased from Sigma and dissolved in absolute ethanol as a 50 mM stock solution before dilution into the working media. Thus, the final concentration of ethanol was 0.1 %, which is not toxic to the bacterium. This information has now been added to the Materials & Methods.

Wild-type cells (MG1655) do not release any H2O2, and we reproduced this result. This observation is now stated in the section of the Materials & Methods section that presents the rationale for doing these experiments in an HPX- (scavenging-deficient) background.

Table1: write the full form of NEB. NO need to write “REF” just numbering is enough. Check for accurateness of the “Reference” column, which should have appropriate references/sources only.

Response: Done.

Figure 6 legend, provide full forms of DTT and DHLA.

Response: Done.

Reviewer's Comments 2:

MS # PONE-D-24-26458 intends to identify major site of ROS generation, which is ubiquitously loosely attributed to FADH2 oxidation during aerobic respiration. However, there are many oxidative pathways wherein FADH2 generates and enters the oxidative electron transport system for ATP production and electron leakage responsible for ROS generation. With the help of E. coli fadE (Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase) mutant, the generation of hydrogen peroxide has been monitored during the in vitro βoxidation of dodecanoic acid, a fatty acid, for the mutant was incapable of scavenging the generated hydrogen peroxide. The authors are inclined to believe that βoxidation generates the major source of ROS within the limits of their experimental setup. Of course, the findings are significant and prompts the further advanced work.

Experimental design and data generation is sound and appears to be reproducible. Results and Discussion are posited logically.

However, the MS needs through scrutiny for standard usage of English language e.g., use “must arise” in place of “must be arise” in Line 45-46 “However, the investigators quickly inferred that these oxygen species must be arise inside cells and be capable of damaging the organism.”

Response: Done.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

pone.0309988.s002.docx (17KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Vipin Chandra Kalia

22 Aug 2024

Evidence for endogenous hydrogen peroxide production by  E. coli  fatty acyl-CoA dehydrogenase

PONE-D-24-26458R1

Dear Dr. Sirithanakorn,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vipin Chandra Kalia, FNASc, FAMI

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

There is a minor suggestion which may be rectified at the Galley Proof stage.

Specific comment:

The following comment was answered in the response letter but the information included in the materials and methods section was incomplete. Please re-write providing the detail rationale of not using WT cells. It is also not true that any living organism with Respiratory Electron Transport (RET) system wouldn’t generate H2O2, it may be undetectable levels.

“For H2O2 production studies in various genetic backgrounds, why you did not use WT cells along with media as controls?”

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Specific comment:

The following comment was answered in the response letter but the information included in the materials and methods section was incomplete. Please re-write providing the detail rationale of not using WT cells. It is also not true that any living organism with Respiratory Electron Transport (RET) system wouldn’t generate H2O2, it may be undetectable levels.

“For H2O2 production studies in various genetic backgrounds, why you did not use WT cells along with media as controls?”

Reviewer #2: The revised text incorporates suggestions/queries raised by both reviewers and has improved significantly. I trust the revised MS deserves to be accepted.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Shamim A Ansari

**********

Acceptance letter

Vipin Chandra Kalia

26 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-26458R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sirithanakorn,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vipin Chandra Kalia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. The tables show raw data of all experiments above.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0309988.s001.docx (33.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0309988.s002.docx (17KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES