1 |
2 |
3 |
![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2000, The National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science Symposium From the Academy Life in extreme environments: Hydrothermal vents *Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; ‡Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602; and §Romberg Tiburon Center, San Francisco State University, 3152 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920 †To whom reprint requests should be addressed. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Eruption of volcanic rocks at
the midocean ridges is the major mechanism by which heat is lost from
the interior of the Earth. Approximately one-third of the heat is
removed from the spreading centers by convective circulation of
seawater (1). The magnitude of this heat loss requires that the entire
volume of the oceans circulates through the midocean ridges in
approximately 10 million years. Seawater interaction with volcanic
rocks at near 400°C results in substantial chemical flux and makes an
important contribution to buffering the composition of some elements in
seawater. Cations from seawater (Mg+2,
Ca+2, and Na+) form
hydroxyl-bearing alteration minerals in the volcanic rocks, releasing
hydrogen ion to solution. The hot, acidic altered-seawater releases
metals (Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) and reduced sulfur
(H2S) from the volcanic rock; these are
transported by hydrothermal solutions to the seafloor and form metallic
mineral deposits. Seafloor hydrothermal vents support ecosystems with enormous biomass
and productivity compared with that observed elsewhere in the deep
oceans. What is the energy source that fuels these oases of life, and
what adaptations allow them to exist in these extreme environments? Oxidation/reduction (redox) reactions are key to supporting
chemosynthesis. The atmosphere and hydrosphere are relatively oxidizing
with an abundance of potential electron acceptors
(O2, SO4=,
and NO3-). In contrast, the
basaltic rocks that form the oceanic crust are relatively reduced
because of the abundance of ferrous iron. High-temperature fluid/rock
interaction forms reduced gases (H2S,
H2, and CH4) that dissolve
in hydrothermal fluid. Representative redox reactions that produce
H2S include:
Serpentinization reactions also may be important in supporting
chemosynthetic communities (2), especially at off-axis sites.
Serpentinization reactions are not limited to the high-temperature
portions of seawater circulation systems, and the
H2 provided by reactions such as 3 is
readily metabolizable by a variety of microbes.
Although there is a potential abundance of chemical energy, deep-sea
hydrothermal communities have had to adapt to extreme conditions to
exploit this resource. Of particular interest are the
hyperthermophiles, which are defined as microorganisms able to grow at
90°C and above. About 20 different types of such organisms are now
known (6). They have been found both within the walls of black smoker
chimneys and where the hydrothermal vent fluids mix with the
surrounding seawater. Classification of the hyperthermophiles has
provided new insights into evolution and the origin of life. All but
two of the hyperthermophilic genera are classified by ribosomal RNA
analyses as Archaea (formerly Archaebacteria), which are the second
domain of prokaryotic life, in addition to the bacteria (7).
Interestingly, by these phylogenetic analyses, the hyperthermophilic
archaea and the two hyperthermophilic bacteria are the most slowly
evolving within their domains, suggesting that life may have first
evolved when the Earth was much hotter than it is now. Such a thesis is
very controversial (8) but indicates that extant life forms are largely
the result of temperature adaptations to lower (below
hyperthermophilic) temperatures. Evolution gives no clue, however, as to how life can thrive near and
above 100°C. Most microbes, and all eukaryotic cells, cannot survive
at temperatures much above 50°C, because of the general instability
of biological molecules. The three-dimensional structures of most
enzymes and proteins are lost at temperatures much above 70°C, and
the double-helical structure of DNA has a comparable lack of stability
in in vitro studies. There are also a wide variety of
ubiquitous metabolites that are rapidly hydrolyzed at temperatures
above 90°C. How do hyperthermophilic cells circumvent these problems? Although there are some examples of modified pathways and unusual
enzymes in hyperthermophiles (9, 10), in general their biochemistry
closely resembles that of the mesophilic world. Yet, most enzymes from
hyperthermophiles are extremely stable at high temperatures, showing
optimal catalytic activity above 100°C with virtually no activity at
ambient temperature. They contain exactly the same 20 amino acids as
enzymes from conventional organisms, so why are they so stable?
Sequence comparisons of analogous proteins from hyperthermophilic and
conventional organisms are essentially identical, so the enormous
amount of sequence information now becoming available (see
www.tigr.org) will be of little use in elucidating stabilizing
mechanisms. Comparisons must be made at the level of the
three-dimensional structures. Yet, even then, there are no gross
structural differences between hyperthermophilic proteins and their
mesophilic counterparts, and both forms are stabilized by the same
noncovalent interactions (11). The number and extent of such
interactions is generally only slightly higher in the hyperthermophilic
versions, so extended protein stability at 100°C appears to be the
result of very subtle, synergistic and cooperative intramolecular
interactions. Moreover, different types of hyperthermophilic protein
seem to have unique solutions to the problem. A general mechanism by
which any conventional protein could be made stable and functional at
temperatures above 100°C may not be forthcoming. For DNA the stabilizing mechanisms are not quite as mysterious.
Denaturation, depurination, and strand cleavage of DNA are greatly
minimized by the relatively high salt (Mg, K, and
PO4) concentrations typically (although not
universally) found in hyperthermophiles (12). Many of these organisms
also have histone-like proteins bound to their DNA (13) and some
contain a unique enzyme termed DNA reverse gyrase (14), both of which
may afford thermal protection. How simple organic metabolites are
stabilized, however, remains a mystery. Some may be “channeled”
from one enzyme to the next although it is not clear whether this is a
widespread mechanism. Many mesophilic microbes in the hydrothermal vent environment use
H2S as an energy source. This molecule is
generally highly toxic to aerobic life forms, yet dense populations of
organisms flourish in a variety of sulfide-enriched environments. How
have they evolved to deal with this extreme environment? Hydrothermal vent communities can inhabit sulfide-rich habitats
because of evolution of detoxification mechanism that often involve
microbial symbionts. Detoxification of sulfide through binding to
blood-borne components is known in chemosynthetic vestimentiferans and
vesicomyid clams and is particularly well characterized for the tube
worm Riftia pachyptila (15, 16). The abundant respiratory
hemoglobin present in the plume of Riftia is capable of
binding oxygen and sulfide simultaneously with very high affinities.
The blood transports the respiratory hemoglobin with the tightly bound
sulfide to the internal symbiotic bacteria, providing an electron donor
for bacterial chemoautotrophy, while also protecting animal tissue by
sequestering the toxin as a bound form. Colonies of Riftia
are anchored on the rocks where hydrothermal fluid (12–15°C) issues
out onto the sea floor. At the base of their tubes, hydrothermal fluid
is enriched in H2S and CO2,
but is devoid of oxygen. The respiratory plume is extended into the
ambient (2°C), oxygen-enriched bottom water. Riftia's
unusual microhabitat is the interface between the hydrothermal fluids
and the ambient bottom water where essential metabolites can be taken
up by the plume and transported to internal bacteria for metabolism.
The steep thermal and chemical gradients provide access to the reduced
compounds needed to fuel growth and the oxygen needed to burn the fuel. Tube worms associated with hydrocarbon seeps are long and thin
with internal morphology and physiology similar to Riftia.
However, they live in an environment where sulfide is present only in
the soft sediment, not in the water column. These worms are
hypothesized to acquire sulfide across a thin extension of the
posterior-most portion of the tube that extends into the sediment (17).
Rather than taking up H2S across the plume
surface, cold seep tube worms appear to transport sulfide across the
body wall. Vesicomyid clams living in hydrothermal vents have
endosymbiont-containing gills. Vesicomyid blood transports oxygen bound
to hemoglobin and contains an extracellular component with a high
sulfide binding affinity (18). In this species, sulfide and oxygen
acquisition are spatially separated. The foot of the clam is extended
down into crevices that vent sulfide-rich water, enabling sulfide
uptake and transport through the circulatory system to gills that are
bathed in oxygen-rich seawater circulated from above. Although
Bathymodiolid mussels living at vents have retained the ability to
filter feed they also have abundant microbial symbionts located in
their gills. However, these mussels oxidize sulfide to nontoxic
thiosulfate, which is used by chemoautotrophic symbionts rather than
H2S (19). Although various sulfide detoxification strategies have evolved,
cumulative data suggest that sulfide binding is a particularly
effective detoxification mechanism for animals harboring
sulfide-oxidizing symbionts. Other marine invertebrates that have no
sulfide binding protein appear to depend on sulfide oxidation for
detoxification. Both strategies allow large communities of animals to
flourish in habitats that typically would be considered inhospitable to
life. Footnotes This paper is a summary of a session presented at the 11th
annual symposium on Frontiers of Science, held November 11–13, 1999,
at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of
Sciences and Engineering in Irvine, CA. Article published online before print: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
10.1073/pnas.210395997. Article and publication date are at www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.210395997 References 1. Humphris S E, Zierenberg R A, Mullineaux L S, Thomson R E, editors. Am Geophys Union Monogr. 1995;91:1–466. 2. Alt J C, Shanks W C., III J Geophys Res. 1998;103:9917–9929. 3. Delaney J R, Kelley D S, Lilley M D, Butterfield P A, Baross J A, Wilcock W S D, Embley R W, Summit M. Science. 1998;281:222–230. 4. Shank T M, Fornari D J, Von Damm K L, Lilley M D, Haymon R M, Lutz R A. Deep-Sea Res. 1998;45:465–515. 5. Von Damm K L, Oosting S E, Kozlowski R, Buttermore L G, Colodner D C, Edmonds H N, Edmond J M, Grebmeier J M. Nature (London). 1995;375:47–50. 6. Stetter K O. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1996;18:149–158. 7. Woese C R, Kandler O, Wheelis M L. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1990;87:4576–4579. [PubMed] 8. Wiegel J, Adams M W W, editors. Thermophiles: The Keys to Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life? Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis; 1998. 9. Kengen S W M, Tuininga J E, Debok F A M, Stams A J M, De Vos W M. J Biol Chem. 1995;270:30453–30457. [PubMed] 10. Adams M W W, Kletzin A. Adv Protein Chem. 1996;48:101–180. [PubMed] 11. Jaenicke R, Bohm G. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1998;8:738–748. [PubMed] 12. Lamosa P, Martins L O, DaCosta M S, Santos H. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:3591–3598. [PubMed] 13. Grayling R A, Sandman K, Reeve J N. Adv Protein Chem. 1996;48:437–467. [PubMed] 14. Forterre P, Bergerat A, Lopez-Garcia P. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1996;18:237–248. [PubMed] 15. Arp A J, Childress J J, Fisher C R., Jr Bull Biol Soc Wash. 1985;6:289–300. 16. Childress J J, Fisher C R. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev. 1992;30:337–441. 17. Julian D, Gaill F, Wood E, Arp A J, Fisher C R. J Exp Biol. 1999;202:2245–2257. [PubMed] 18. Arp A J, Childress J J, Fisher C R., Jr Physiol Zool. 1984;57:648–662. 19. Fisher C R, Childress J J, Oremland R S, Bidigare R R. Mar Biol (Berlin). 1987;96:59–71. |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Jun; 87(12):4576-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990]J Biol Chem. 1995 Dec 22; 270(51):30453-7.
[J Biol Chem. 1995]Adv Protein Chem. 1996; 48():101-80.
[Adv Protein Chem. 1996]Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1998 Dec; 8(6):738-48.
[Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1998]Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Oct; 64(10):3591-8.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998]Adv Protein Chem. 1996; 48():437-67.
[Adv Protein Chem. 1996]FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1996 May; 18(2-3):237-48.
[FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1996]J Exp Biol. 1999 Sep; 202(Pt 17):2245-57.
[J Exp Biol. 1999]