the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Position-specific kinetic isotope effects for nitrous oxide: A new expansion of the Rayleigh model
Abstract. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a potent greenhouse gas and the most significant anthropogenic ozone-depleting substance currently being emitted. A major source of anthropogenic N2O emissions is the microbial conversion of fixed nitrogen species from fertilizers in agricultural soils. Thus, understanding the enzymatic mechanisms by which microbes produce N2O has environmental significance. Measurement of the 15N/14N isotope ratios of N2O produced by purified enzymes or axenic microbial cultures is a promising technique for studying N2O biosynthesis. Typically, N2O-producing enzymes combine nitrogen atoms from two identical substrate molecules (NO or NH2OH). Position-specific isotope analysis of the central (Nα) and outer (Nβ) nitrogen atoms in N2O enables the determination of the individual kinetic isotope effects (KIEs) for Nα and Nβ, providing mechanistic insight into the incorporation of each nitrogen atom. Previously, position-specific KIEs (and fractionation factors) were quantified using the Rayleigh distillation equation, i.e., via linear regression of δ15Nα or δ15Nβ against [-flnf/(1-f)], where f is the fraction of substrate remaining in a closed system. This approach, however, is inaccurate for Nα and Nβ because it does not account for fractionation at Nα affecting the isotopic composition of substrate available for incorporation into the β position (and vice versa). Therefore, we developed a new expansion of the Rayleigh model that includes specific terms for fractionation at the individual N2O nitrogen atoms. By applying this Expanded Rayleigh model to a variety of simulated N2O synthesis reactions with different combinations of normal/inverse/no KIEs at Nα and Nβ, we demonstrate that our new model is both accurate and robust. We also applied this new model to two previously published datasets describing N2O production from NH2OH oxidation in a methanotroph culture (Methylosinus trichosporium) and N2O production from NO by a purified Histoplasma capsulatum (fungal) P450 NOR, demonstrating that the Expanded Rayleigh model is a useful tool in calculating position-specific fractionation for N2O synthesis.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1402 KB)
-
Supplement
(1406 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1402 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1406 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-963', Paul Magyar, 21 Jun 2024
This manuscript represents a valuable contribution to N2O stable isotope science. It provides a suitable approach for including appropriate mass balance considerations in applying the Rayleigh model to position-specific N isotope effects, and points towards a more comprehensive framework for position-specific isotope effects in a broader array of molecules. The level of clarity and detail with which the assumptions of this model are explained, including how they extend and differ from those of the conventional Rayleigh model, is very welcome. Also, the creation and evaluation of the simulated datasets provides great value in showing the strengths and limitations of the Rayleigh model at fitting natural data with error and variations, even beyond the specific application to the Extended Rayleigh model. However, given its complexity it is hard to follow in places. Any way that the calculations described in the Methods could be better connected with their outcomes in the Results would be welcome, as would better integration between figures illustrating various datasets and the outcome of calculations based on them. Furthermore, perhaps details regarding plotting and calculations that apply throughout could be consolidated and mentioned only once. Sections of the methods, especially Section 2.8 could also be streamlined without eliminating any information, which would improve readability.
The inclusion of both KIE and ε throughout the manuscript also introduces some potential for confusion. This is mitigated somewhat by inclusion of ‘normal’ and ‘inverse’ in reference to various isotope effects in the text, but perhaps it would be clearer to note the alternative definitions but choose a single parameter to report throughout the text. Relatedly, I think that the definition of a given at line 60 would be better referenced to Mariotti et al. (1981) or another source, and the cited reference (Bigeleisen and Wolfsberg, 1958) would be more suitable for the definition of KIE (and the overall concept).
Regarding the fungal P450 NOR case study, it was not entirely clear to me why the variation in fractionation over the course of the experiment requires that the Expanded Rayleigh model was applied only to subsets of the dataset. Doing so also limits the comparability of these outcomes to the results of the Standard Rayleigh model. For the NH2OH oxidation case study, even after looking in the supporting information and the original Sutka et al. (2006) paper, it was not clear to me what the initial value of substrate was, or exactly how the extent of reaction f was calculated from the information provided.
This preprint already sparked an excellent discussion in our reading group, and I look forward to seeing it published soon, and discovering what past and future measurements this approach can be applied to, thereby improving our understanding of N2O generations mechanisms in natural settings.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-963-CC1 - AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Eric Hegg, 23 Jul 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-963', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jun 2024
This manuscript presents the new Expanded Rayleigh model applicable for N2O synthesis for proper calculation of isotope effects regarding 2 different positions of N. This is very important development for enzymatic studies on N2O production in various pathways. It is very surprising that the differences while using classical Rayleigh model and the new developed Expanded Rayleigh model are so significant. It shows that it is highly necessary to apply thie new calculation approach in such kind of studies.
The manuscript is clearly written and appropriate for publication in BG after minor edition.
I have only a few minor comments.
L 46 s in a particular chemical compound – which chemical compound when you write about N2O, you mean any other? – info on compound-specific stable isotope analysis can be omitted in your introduction, since you do not need this afterwards
L116 – please delete “*1000” from the equation, it shouldn’t be part of the δ definition, is just the way of presenting in permil notation, see eg. https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rcm.8890
L121 – the equation is mathematically not true, you define Nbulk as total number of atoms and then this is equal mol N2O?! When mol represents 6.022*1023 atoms! You mix here up different units. This is not equal. -The same wrong statement you have later in L 225
Fig. 2 very nice idea of summarising the equations and calculation goals! (whele reading the equation part I had a few questions which are all solved here)
Fig 4 and 5 it would be interesting to see the comparison of values calculated with normal and expanded Rayleigh model
L 410-418 You present here the extreme cases with strong differences in fractionation in alfa and beta position, of course, then the differences between both calculation models are large. However, I wonder if these cases are realistic in any way? Is there any possible process which shows that different isotope discrimination in both positions?
L432 – the sentence from “To address this issue, we have developed…” is a repetition of what you already said in methods section, not needed here. Please pay attention to omit unnecessary repetitions
Table 5 – what is Expanded 1 and 2? Please explain in Fig caption or footnotes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-963-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Eric Hegg, 23 Jul 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-963', Paul Magyar, 21 Jun 2024
This manuscript represents a valuable contribution to N2O stable isotope science. It provides a suitable approach for including appropriate mass balance considerations in applying the Rayleigh model to position-specific N isotope effects, and points towards a more comprehensive framework for position-specific isotope effects in a broader array of molecules. The level of clarity and detail with which the assumptions of this model are explained, including how they extend and differ from those of the conventional Rayleigh model, is very welcome. Also, the creation and evaluation of the simulated datasets provides great value in showing the strengths and limitations of the Rayleigh model at fitting natural data with error and variations, even beyond the specific application to the Extended Rayleigh model. However, given its complexity it is hard to follow in places. Any way that the calculations described in the Methods could be better connected with their outcomes in the Results would be welcome, as would better integration between figures illustrating various datasets and the outcome of calculations based on them. Furthermore, perhaps details regarding plotting and calculations that apply throughout could be consolidated and mentioned only once. Sections of the methods, especially Section 2.8 could also be streamlined without eliminating any information, which would improve readability.
The inclusion of both KIE and ε throughout the manuscript also introduces some potential for confusion. This is mitigated somewhat by inclusion of ‘normal’ and ‘inverse’ in reference to various isotope effects in the text, but perhaps it would be clearer to note the alternative definitions but choose a single parameter to report throughout the text. Relatedly, I think that the definition of a given at line 60 would be better referenced to Mariotti et al. (1981) or another source, and the cited reference (Bigeleisen and Wolfsberg, 1958) would be more suitable for the definition of KIE (and the overall concept).
Regarding the fungal P450 NOR case study, it was not entirely clear to me why the variation in fractionation over the course of the experiment requires that the Expanded Rayleigh model was applied only to subsets of the dataset. Doing so also limits the comparability of these outcomes to the results of the Standard Rayleigh model. For the NH2OH oxidation case study, even after looking in the supporting information and the original Sutka et al. (2006) paper, it was not clear to me what the initial value of substrate was, or exactly how the extent of reaction f was calculated from the information provided.
This preprint already sparked an excellent discussion in our reading group, and I look forward to seeing it published soon, and discovering what past and future measurements this approach can be applied to, thereby improving our understanding of N2O generations mechanisms in natural settings.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-963-CC1 - AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Eric Hegg, 23 Jul 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-963', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jun 2024
This manuscript presents the new Expanded Rayleigh model applicable for N2O synthesis for proper calculation of isotope effects regarding 2 different positions of N. This is very important development for enzymatic studies on N2O production in various pathways. It is very surprising that the differences while using classical Rayleigh model and the new developed Expanded Rayleigh model are so significant. It shows that it is highly necessary to apply thie new calculation approach in such kind of studies.
The manuscript is clearly written and appropriate for publication in BG after minor edition.
I have only a few minor comments.
L 46 s in a particular chemical compound – which chemical compound when you write about N2O, you mean any other? – info on compound-specific stable isotope analysis can be omitted in your introduction, since you do not need this afterwards
L116 – please delete “*1000” from the equation, it shouldn’t be part of the δ definition, is just the way of presenting in permil notation, see eg. https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rcm.8890
L121 – the equation is mathematically not true, you define Nbulk as total number of atoms and then this is equal mol N2O?! When mol represents 6.022*1023 atoms! You mix here up different units. This is not equal. -The same wrong statement you have later in L 225
Fig. 2 very nice idea of summarising the equations and calculation goals! (whele reading the equation part I had a few questions which are all solved here)
Fig 4 and 5 it would be interesting to see the comparison of values calculated with normal and expanded Rayleigh model
L 410-418 You present here the extreme cases with strong differences in fractionation in alfa and beta position, of course, then the differences between both calculation models are large. However, I wonder if these cases are realistic in any way? Is there any possible process which shows that different isotope discrimination in both positions?
L432 – the sentence from “To address this issue, we have developed…” is a repetition of what you already said in methods section, not needed here. Please pay attention to omit unnecessary repetitions
Table 5 – what is Expanded 1 and 2? Please explain in Fig caption or footnotes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-963-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Eric Hegg, 23 Jul 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Results for datasets with simulated error (derived from Datasets 1-5) Elise Rivett https://zenodo.org/records/10888931
Model code and software
position-specific-kie Elise Rivett https://github.com/GLBRC/position-specific-KIE
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
326 | 98 | 30 | 454 | 60 | 23 | 22 |
- HTML: 326
- PDF: 98
- XML: 30
- Total: 454
- Supplement: 60
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Wenjuan Ma
Nathaniel E. Ostrom
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1402 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1406 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper