Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mBio
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Research Article

Global Survey of Canonical Aspergillus flavus G Protein-Coupled Receptors

Katharyn J. Affeldt, Joseph Carrig, Meareg Amare, Nancy P. Keller
B. Gillian Turgeon, Editor
Katharyn J. Affeldt
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology & Immunology, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph Carrig
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology & Immunology, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Meareg Amare
bDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nancy P. Keller
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology & Immunology, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
bDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Gillian Turgeon
Cornell University
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01501-14
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Supplemental Material
  • Additional Files
  • TABLE 1 

    Overview of A. flavus GPCRs

    GeneGene ID (AFLA_x)No. of amino acidsClassConserved domain (note)No. of TM domainsa
    gprA060740374ISTE2 GPCR (S. cerevisiae pheromone receptor)6/7
    gprB061620465IISTE3 GPCR (S. cerevisiae pheromone receptor)7/7
    gprC074150444IIIGit3; Git3_C (S. pombe glucose receptor)7/6
    gprD135680415IIIGit3; Git3_C (S. pombe glucose receptor)7/7
    gprF006880300IVPQ loop repeat (S. pombe nitrogen sensor)4/5
    gprG067770426IVPQ loop repeat (S. pombe nitrogen sensor)7/7
    gprH006920428VSecretin family (signal through cAMP pathways)7/7
    gprJ127870322IVPQ loop repeat (S. pombe nitrogen sensor)7/7
    gprK009790560VIRGS domain (regulator of G protein signaling)7/7
    gprM075000490VII[No conserved domains]7/7
    gprO032130282VIIIHemolysin III related (broad range of ligands)6/7
    gprP088190502VIIIHemolysin III related (broad range of ligands)7/7
    gprR023070523VIRGS domain (regulator of G protein signaling)7/7
    gprS006320266IVPQ loop repeat (S. pombe nitrogen sensor)7/7
    nopA117970312IXBacteriorhodopsin-like (photoreactive)7/7
    • ↵a The first number is predicted by TMHMM; the second is predicted by TopPred.

  • TABLE 2 

    Developmental phenotypes of A. flavus Δgpr mutantsa

    TABLE 2 
    • a GPCR mutants were assayed for germination rate at 4 to 9 h postinoculation and for aflatoxin (AF) production on AF-promoting (YES) and AF-repressing (YEP) media. For both assays, shaded squares represent data points that were significantly different from those for the wild type (WT). The color of each box indicates the amount of germinated spores or AF produced as a percentage of WT germination or AF produced. The ratios of spores produced under light and dark conditions (L/D), as well as spores and sclerotia produced by high-density (H) and low-density (L) inocula, were determined, and any data point that did not exhibit the same pattern as the WT is shaded gray. For all four experiments, statistical significance was determined by a Student t test, with P < 0.05. Deletions are shown in the “Strain” column.

  • TABLE 3 

    Growth of A. flavus Δgpr mutants on various carbon and nitrogen sourcesa

    TABLE 3 
    • a Strains were grown on a variety of media with different sources of carbon and nitrogen. The radial growth was measured, and mutants were compared to the WT on the same medium. The carbon sources were glucose (Glu), galactose (Gal), xylose (Xyl), sucrose (Suc), corn oil, and corn oil with glucose. The nitrogen sources were peptone (Pep), ammonium chloride, and proline (Pro). Shaded boxes indicate data points that were significantly different from those for the WT, with the color representing the degree of growth inhibition compared to the WT. Significance was determined by a Student t test, with P < 0.05. Deletions are shown in the “Strain” column.

  • TABLE 4 

    Stress responses of A. flavus Δgpr mutantsa

    TABLE 4 
    • a Strains were exposed to a variety of stresses, including reactive oxygen species (ROS), cell wall stress, osmolarity stress, and high and low pHs. Percent inhibition of growth under stress versus growth on control medium (GMM) was measured. Shaded boxes indicate data points in which the percent inhibition of the mutant differed significantly from that of the WT, and the degree of the difference is indicated by the different colors. Darker red tones indicate mutants with greater sensitivity to the stressor, while darker blue tones denote the opposite. Significance was determined by a Student t test, with P < 0.05. Deletions are shown in the “Strain” column.

  • TABLE 5 

    A. flavus Δgpr mutant responses to fatty acids and oxylipinsa

    TABLE 5 
    • a Strains were incubated with or without MeJA, a repressor of AF biosynthesis, and AF was extracted and measured by HPLC. Strains were also exposed to disks soaked with the sporulation inducers 13(S)-HpODE and linoleic acid or the negative control ethanol (EtOH), and spores surrounding the disks were counted. Shaded boxes represent data points that did not exhibit the WT response, and the mutant response is indicated (“NR” means “no response”). Statistical significance was determined by a Student’s t test with P < 0.05. Deletions are shown in the “Strain” column.

  • TABLE 6 

    Expression of GPCR-encoding genes under various conditionsa

    TABLE 6 
    • a Expression data from several different studies were mined for expression levels of the GPCRs under various conditions. For each data set, the log2-fold change (FC) value and P value (p val.) are reported. The first four data sets contain microarray data, while the last two contain RNA-seq data. The first data set (“Maize/mycelia”) reports the FC in expression from A. flavus grown as mycelia in liquid culture to A. flavus grown on maize. The second (“Wheat/maize”) reports the FC in expression from A. flavus growing on maize to A. flavus growing on wheat. The third (“Germ/endosperm”) reports the FC in expression from A. flavus growing on the corn kernel endosperm to growth on the kernel germ. The fifth and sixth data sets (“Mycelia/sclerotia”) report the FC in expression from A. flavus growing as mycelia to producing sclerotia. The final data set reports the FC in expression from untreated A. flavus cultures to those exposed to 5-AC.

  • TABLE 7 

    Potential roles of A. flavus GPCRs

    Strain descriptionPredicted role(s)Observed role(s)
    ΔgprAMatingGermination; AF repression; carbon source sensing; oxylipin sensing
    ΔgprBMatingGermination; quorum sensing; MeJA sensing
    ΔgprCGlucose sensingGermination; carbon and nitrogen sensing; 13(S)-HpODE sensing
    ΔgprDGlucose sensingNitrogen sensing; ROS, cell wall, acidic pH stress response; 13(S)-HpODE sensing
    ΔgprFNitrogen sensingLight sensing; quorum sensing; acidic pH stress response; oxylipin sensing
    ΔgprGNitrogen sensingROS and acidic pH stress responses; oxylipin sensing
    ΔgprHMethionine sensingGermination; ROS stress response
    ΔgprJNitrogen sensingGermination; carbon sensing; 13(S)-HpODE sensing
    ΔgprKUnknownGermination; carbon sensing; cell wall, osmotic, and acidic stress response, MeJA sensing
    ΔgprMUnknownCarbon sensing; osmotic and pH stress responses; MeJA sensing
    ΔgprOUnknownOxylipin sensing
    ΔgprPUnknownGermination; AF repression; carbon sensing; oxylipin sensing
    ΔgprRUnknownGermination; light sensing; carbon and nitrogen sensing; osmotic and alkaline pH stress responses; lipid and oxylipin sensing
    ΔgprSNitrogen sensingGermination; cell wall stress response; MeJA sensing
    ΔnopALight sensingUnknown

Supplemental Material

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure S1

    Alignment of fungal GPCRs. GPCR protein sequences were aligned using Clustal Omega, and a phylogenetic tree was generated using Phylogeny.fr. A. flavus GPCRs are colored red. Download Figure S1, TIF file, 0.8 MB.

    Copyright © 2014 Affeldt et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

  • Figure S2

    Confirmation of disruption of GPCR-encoding genes. Disruption of each GPCR was confirmed by Southern blotting. For all blots, strain TKJA13.1 was used as the wild type, though for several blots, the probe did not hybridize to the wild-type DNA. The expected band sizes are as follows: gprA, WT = 8.5, 2.8 kb; Δ = 7.8, 2.8, 1.6 kb; gprB, WT = 10.4, 4.0 kb; Δ = 8.9, 4.0, 1.8 kb; gprC, WT = 5.3, 2.1 kb; Δ = 4.9, 2.1, 1.1 kb; gprD, WT = 6.1, 2.3 kb; Δ = 5.8, 2.3, 1.1 kb; gprF, WT = 4.0 kb; Δ = 2.9, 2.2 kb; gprG, WT = 10.3 kb; Δ = 9.0, 3.3, 2.3 kb; gprH, WT = 6.1 kb; Δ = 4.9, 1.9 kb; gprJ, WT = 7.4 kb; Δ = 5.2, 2.8 kb; gprK, WT = 7.1 kb; Δ =5.3, 2.2 kb; gprM, WT = 6.9 kb; Δ = 5.1, 2.2 kb; gprO, WT = 6.6 kb; Δ = 4.3, 3.3 kb; gprP, WT = 5.8 kb; Δ = 3.9, 2.4 kb; gprR, WT = 5.6 kb; Δ = 4.1, 2.4 kb; gprS, WT = 6.7 kb; Δ = 5.9, 1.8 kb; nopA, WT = 7.6 kb; Δ = 5.7, 2.9 kb. Download Figure S2, TIF file, 1.8 MB.

    Copyright © 2014 Affeldt et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

  • Figure S3

    Impact of uridine and uracil on ΔgprR strain stress responses. (A) ΔgprR mutants in two different genetic backgrounds (CA14 and NRRL3357) were compared on neutral pH (pH 6.5) versus alkaline pH (pH 8) with and without supplementation of uridine and uracil (UU). After 3 days, radial growth was measured. (B) The same strains were also compared on glucose minimal medium (GMM) versus GMM amended with the cell wall stressor Congo red, both with and without UU. After 3 days, radial growth was measured. In both panels A and B, the percent growth inhibition caused by the stressor was calculated, and a two-tailed Student t test (P < 0.05) was carried out to assess differences between percent inhibition with and without UU supplementation. Differences that were not significant are denoted “n.s.,” and significant differences are marked with an asterisk (*, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01). Download Figure S3, TIF file, 0.6 MB.

    Copyright © 2014 Affeldt et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

  • Figure S4

    Impact of uridine and uracil on the stress responses of three independent ΔgprM transformants. (A) Three independent ΔgprM transformants in the CA14 background were compared to the wild type (WT) on neutral pH (pH 6.5) versus alkaline pH (pH 8) with and without supplementation of uridine and uracil (UU). After 3 days, radial growth was measured. (B) The same strains were also compared on glucose minimal medium (GMM) versus GMM amended with the cell wall stressor Congo red, both with and without UU. After 3 days, radial growth was measured. In both panels A and B, the percent growth inhibition caused by the stressor was calculated, and a two-tailed Student’s t test (P < 0.05) was carried out to assess differences between percent inhibition with and without UU supplementation. Differences that were not significant are denoted “n.s.,” and significant differences are marked with an asterisk (P < 0.05). Download Figure S4, TIF file, 0.6 MB.

    Copyright © 2014 Affeldt et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

  • Figure S5

    Impact of uridine and uracil on the stress responses of mutants that do not exhibit a marker gene effect. (A) Independent ΔgprD and ΔgprH transformants in the CA14 background were compared to the wild type (WT) on neutral pH (pH 6.5) versus alkaline pH (pH 8) with and without supplementation of uridine and uracil (UU). After 3 days, radial growth was measured. (B) The same strains were also compared on glucose minimal medium (GMM) versus GMM amended with the cell wall stressor Congo red, both with and without UU. After 3 days, radial growth was measured. In both panels A and B, the percent growth inhibition caused by the stressor was calculated, and a two-tailed Student’s t test (P < 0.05) was carried out to assess differences between percent inhibition with and without UU supplementation. Differences that were not significant are denoted “n.s.,” and significant differences are marked with an asterisk (*, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01). Download Figure S5, TIF file, 0.7 MB.

    Copyright © 2014 Affeldt et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

  • Table S1

    Stress responses of multiple isolates of a subset of Δgpr mutants; strains were exposed to alkaline pH (pH 8) and cell wall stress (Congo red); percent inhibition of growth under stress versus growth on control medium (GMM) was measured; shaded boxes indicate data points in which the percent inhibition of the mutant differed significantly from that of the WT, as determined by a two-tailed Student’s t test (P < 0.05), and the degree of the difference is indicated by the different colors; darker red tones indicate mutants with greater sensitivity to the stressor, while darker blue tones denote the opposite. Table S1, TIF file, 0.3 MB.

    Copyright © 2014 Affeldt et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

  • Table S2

    All strains used in this study and their genotypes Table S2, XLSX file, 0.1 MB.

    Copyright © 2014 Affeldt et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

  • Table S3

    Oligonucleotide primers used for strain construction and confirmation Table S3, XLSX file, 0.04 MB.

    Copyright © 2014 Affeldt et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • Supplemental Material
  • Supplementary Data

    Supplementary Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Figure sf1, TIF - Figure sf1, TIF
    • Figure sf2, TIF - Figure sf2, TIF
    • Figure sf3, TIF - Figure sf3, TIF
    • Figure sf4, TIF - Figure sf4, TIF
    • Figure sf5, TIF - Figure sf5, TIF
    • Table st1, TIF - Table st1, TIF
    • Table st2, XLSX - Table st2, XLSX
    • Table st3, XLSX - Table st3, XLSX
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Global Survey of Canonical Aspergillus flavus G Protein-Coupled Receptors
Katharyn J. Affeldt, Joseph Carrig, Meareg Amare, Nancy P. Keller
mBio Oct 2014, 5 (5) e01501-14; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01501-14

Citation Manager Formats

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

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mBio article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Global Survey of Canonical Aspergillus flavus G Protein-Coupled Receptors
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mBio
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mBio.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Global Survey of Canonical Aspergillus flavus G Protein-Coupled Receptors
Katharyn J. Affeldt, Joseph Carrig, Meareg Amare, Nancy P. Keller
mBio Oct 2014, 5 (5) e01501-14; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01501-14
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mBio
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • AAM Fellows
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mBio

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2150-7511