Purification and structural characterization of siderophore (corynebactin) from Corynebacterium diphtheriae.

During infection, Corynebacterium diphtheriae must compete with host iron-sequestering mechanisms for iron. C. diphtheriae can acquire iron by a siderophore-dependent iron-uptake pathway, by uptake and degradation of heme, or both. Previous studies showed that production of siderophore (corynebactin) by C. diphtheriae is repressed under high-iron growth conditions by the iron-activated diphtheria toxin repressor (DtxR) and that partially purified corynebactin fails to react in chemical assays for catecholate or hydroxamate compounds. In this study, we purified corynebactin from supernatants of low-iron cultures of the siderophore-overproducing, DtxR-negative mutant strain C. diphtheriae C7(ß) ΔdtxR by sequential anion-exchange chromatography on AG1-X2 and Source 15Q resins, followed by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) on Zorbax C8 resin. The Chrome Azurol S (CAS) chemical assay for siderophores was used to detect and measure corynebactin during purification, and the biological activity of purified corynebactin was shown by its ability to promote growth and iron uptake in siderophore-deficient mutant strains of C. diphtheriae under iron-limiting conditions. Mass spectrometry and NMR analysis demonstrated that corynebactin has a novel structure, consisting of a central lysine residue linked through its α- and ε- amino groups by amide bonds to the terminal carboxyl groups of two different citrate residues. Corynebactin from C. diphtheriae is structurally related to staphyloferrin A from Staphylococcus aureus and rhizoferrin from Rhizopus microsporus in which d-ornithine or 1,4-diaminobutane, respectively, replaces the central lysine residue that is present in corynebactin.

Time-motion analysis of 6 cystic fibrosis mutation detection systems.

BACKGROUND: A dramatic increase in requests for routine cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier screening prompted us to conduct a time-motion analysis comparing commercially available CF testing platforms. Questions addressed in the study included: (a) How much time is required to perform each step involved in carrying out the assay procedure? (b) Which system requires the minimum number of manual manipulations to complete a typical run? (c) What workflow benefits can be achieved by automation? METHODS: We used a 96-sample run for comparisons and analyzed each of the 6 methods to determine the number of pipetting steps and manual manipulations, the labor and instrument time, and the total time required to perform the assay. The survey participants included a staff of 4 technologists who perform complex molecular assays regularly. Time required for each procedure was determined by direct observation and from work logs completed by the technologists. RESULTS: The total number of pipetting motions varied from 78 to 344. Labor time ranged from 2.6 to 8.4 h, and total assay time from 7.6 to 13.7 h. CONCLUSION: Time-motion analysis allowed identification of a method that minimized pipetting motions and thus reduced the risk of repetitive stress injury.