Download PDF
Synlett 2018; 29(05): 537-541
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1609226
synpacts
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

The Role of Bacterial Natural Products in Predator Defense

Martin Klapper
Junior Research Group Chemistry of Microbial Communication, Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology, HKI, Beutenbergstrasse 11a, 07745 Jena, Germany   Email: pierre.stallforth@leibniz-hki.de
,
Johannes Arp
Junior Research Group Chemistry of Microbial Communication, Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology, HKI, Beutenbergstrasse 11a, 07745 Jena, Germany   Email: pierre.stallforth@leibniz-hki.de
,
Markus Günther
Junior Research Group Chemistry of Microbial Communication, Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology, HKI, Beutenbergstrasse 11a, 07745 Jena, Germany   Email: pierre.stallforth@leibniz-hki.de
,
Pierre Stallforth  *
Junior Research Group Chemistry of Microbial Communication, Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology, HKI, Beutenbergstrasse 11a, 07745 Jena, Germany   Email: pierre.stallforth@leibniz-hki.de
› Author AffiliationsThis work was supported by the Hans Knöll Institute, the Leibniz ­Association, the Daimler und Benz foundation (Scholarship to P.S.), and the Jena School of Microbial Communication and Aventis foundation (Scholarships to M.K.), DFG STA 1431/2-1 and SFB 1127 ChemBioSys.
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 08 December 2017

Accepted after revision: 04 January 2017

Publication Date:
06 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category


Abstract

Bacterially produced natural products, i.e., low molecular weight metabolites, or derivatives thereof, constitute most of the commercially available antibiotics as well as a large proportion of anticancer drugs. While indispensable as therapeutically active compounds, the ecological roles of many of these bacterial natural products remain poorly understood. Here, we discuss these metabolites in light of ­microbial predator defense: soil bacteria are constantly threatened by a variety of predators and the secretion of low molecular weight toxins enables the producing bacteria to kill or deter the predator. Conversely, a deeper understanding of these microbial predator–prey interactions can lead to the discovery of novel compounds, which in turn can be of therapeutic use.

Key words

natural products - biosynthesis - secondary metabolites - pyreudiones - amoebae
 

  • References

  • 1 Schatz A. Bugie E. Waksman AS. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1944; 55: 66
    Crossref
  • 2 Lewis K. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2013; 12: 371
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 3 Brown ED. Wright GD. Nature 2016; 529: 336
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 4 Weber T. Blin K. Duddela S. Krug D. Kim HU. Bruccoleri R. Lee SY. Fischbach MA. Müller R. Wohlleben W. Breitling R. Takano E. Medema MH. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015; 43: W237
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 5 Bode HB. Müller R. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005; 44: 6828
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 6 Zerikly M. Challis GL. ChemBioChem 2009; 10: 625
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 7 Scott JJ. Oh DC. Yuceer MC. Klepzig KD. Clardy J. Currie CR. Science 2008; 322: 63
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 8 Seyedsayamdost MR. Case RJ. Kolter R. Clardy J. Nat. Chem. 2011; 3: 331
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 9 Oh D.-C. Poulsen M. Currie CR. Clardy J. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2009; 5: 391
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 10 Kroiss J. Kaltenpoth M. Schneider B. Schwinger M.-G. Hertweck C. Maddula RK. Strohm E. Svatoš AS. S. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010; 6: 261
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 11 Lincke T. Behnken S. Ishida K. Roth M. Hertweck C. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010; 49: 2011
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 12 Guo H. Benndorf R. Leichnitz D. Klassen JL. Vollmers J. Görls H. Steinacker M. Weigel C. Dahse H.-M. Kaster A.-K. de Beer ZW. Poulsen M. Beemelmanns C. Chem. Eur. J. 2017; 23: 9338
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 13 Matz C. Kjelleberg S. Trends Microbiol. 2005; 13: 302
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 14 Adiba S. Nizak C. van Baalen M. Denamur E. Depaulis F. PLoS ONE 2010; 5: e11882
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 15 Erken M. Lutz C. McDougald D. Microb. Ecol. 2013; 65: 860
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 16 Steinert M. Semin. Cell. Dev. Biol. 2011; 22: 70
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 17 Chisholm RL. Firtel RA. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2004; 5: 531
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 18 Jousset A. Environ. Microbiol. 2011; 14: 1830
    PubMed
  • 19 Singh BN. Nature 1942; 149: 168
  • 20 Matz C. Deines P. Boenigk J. Arndt H. Eberl L. Kjelleberg S. Jurgens K. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004; 70: 1593
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 21 Mazzola M. de Bruijn I. Cohen MF. Raaijmakers JM. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009; 75: 6804
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 22 Klapper M. Götze S. Barnett R. Willing K. Stallforth P. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016; 55: 8944
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 23 Götze S. Herbst-Irmer R. Klapper M. Görls H. Schneider KR. A. Barnett R. Burks T. Neu U. Stallforth P. ACS Chem. Biol. 2017; 12: 2498
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 24 Paul C. Mausz MA. Pohnert G. Metabolomics 2012; 9: 349
  • 25 Cavender JC. Cavender-Bares J. Hohl HR. Bot. Helv. 1995; 105: 199
  • 26 Brock DA. Douglas TE. Queller DC. Strassmann JE. Nature 2011; 469: 393
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 27 Stallforth P. Brock DA. Cantley AM. Tian X. Queller DC. Strassmann JE. Clardy J. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013; 110: 14528
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 28 Barnett R., Stallforth P.; Chem. Eur. J.; 2018, in press; DOI: 10.1002/chem.201703694