CH391L/S13/Gas Vesicles

From OpenWetWare

< CH391L/S13
Revision as of 12:48, 6 May 2013 by Yunle Huang (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search



GvpA acts as the "ribs" of the gas vesicle while GvpC acts as the "glue"[1]


History/Past Research

Year Event
1895 First discovered in cyanobacteria by Henrich klebahn
1931 Gas vacuoles discovered in Halobacterium (halobium) salinarum
Hammer, Cork and Bottle experiment done by Klebahn. A: The bottle of cyanobacteria on the left was hit with a hammer. The right bottle was untreated. B: The same bottles after a few hours. The hammered cyanobacteria lost buoyancy while the untreated ones did not.

In 1895, Klebahn showed that gas vesicles could be destroyed in cyanobacteria by applying pressure with his “Hammer, Cork and Bottle” experiments [2]. His suspicions about a membrane enclosed structure was confirmed in 1965, when Bowen and Jensen used electron microscopy to discover that some species of cyanobacteria had gas vacuoles that were made of stacks of cylindrical structures that they termed “gas vesicles”[3]. In 1969, Walsby found that gas vesicles were very gas permeable, and that the pressure inside them was equal to atmospheric pressure. In 1971, he also reported that the vesicles were susceptible to instant collapse under hydrostatic pressure, and suggested that cyanobacteria could be killed using ultrasound[4]. Walsby found in 1982 that gas vesicles are permeable to a variety of small gas molecules, including O2, N2, H2, CO2, and CH4[5]. In addition, the vesicles fill with gas through diffusion and thus no gas can be stored. In 1994 he found that liquid water cannot exist inside the gas vesicle because the high surface tension of the hydrophobic interior prevents entry and also because any water droplets that form will instantly evaporate[1].

Role of Gas Vesicles in Nature

Halophilic Archaea

Gas vesicles of ***Hfx. mediterranei***[6]

Halophilic archaea are salt-loving microorganisms that live in places such as the Great Salt Lake in Utah and the Dead Sea. Halobacterium salinarum, the first organism to have its gas vesicles characterized, uses bacteriorhodopsin as a light-driven proton pump that only work in an oxygen deficient environment[7]. H. salinarum prefers long wavelength light, and avoids UV light. When UV light is present, vesicle formation is suppressed, allowed the cell to sink further down. Thus, H. salinarum is typically found at a certain depth in water rather than at the surface. Another consequence of this positioning is that the cell are protected from rainwater that could cause lysis. Another organism, Haloferax mediterranei, produces gas vesicles only when salt concentrations are high[8]. These high salt concentrations are avoided since there is a very low oxygen concentration and salt crystals are likely to form, causing cell death.


Cyanobacteria require light to obtain energy, so it is important that they stay out of deep water, where light cannot penetrate. Vesicle production is promoted at low light levels and suppressed at high light levels which allows them to stay away from light deficient zones while keeping them away from the surface of the water. Anabaena flos-aquae uses gas vesicles along with carbohydrate sinking to regulate its depth. At low light levels, gas vesicles are produced and bring the organism closer to the surface. However, since UV light is harmful, it’s important that the cell stays below the surface. To counteract the gas vesicles, dense carbohydrates are formed during photosynthesis that cause the cell to sink. It is likely this mechanism that causes the waterblooms that appear in the morning to disappear by the afternoon[1].

Featured Paper

Absorbance readings from ELISA assays. Each shaded bar represents a different mouse. An initial immunization (not shown) and two additional boosters were first given to the mice and their antibody levels were measured. To test for longevity, 8 months were allowed to pass before testing for antibodies again. To test for immunological memory, the mice were immunized a single time and subsequent levels of antibodies in the following days were measured.[9]


They explored the possibility of using gas vesicles as a delivery system for antigens by first testing if TNP, a hapten, when bound to gas vesicles, could produce a immune response. TNP will not normally generate an immune response since it is too small for antigen-presenting cells to efficiently uptake. Four mice were initially immunized with TNP-GV and two additional boosters were applied. After each booster, the amount of antibodies increased. To test if the mice had lasting protection, immunization was reapplied after an 8 month period and subsequent levels of antibody were tested. They found that the antibody levels rapidly increased after re-immunization. Next, they tried to create recombinant gas vesicles that had a short peptide antigen attached to gas vesicle protein C (gvpC, the “glue” that holds together the gvpA shell), which they found to be immunogenic .

iGEM connection



Future Directions

With regards to synthetic biology, there has not much much work done using gas vesicles. Since the genes of the gas vesicles are known and sequenced, the next step would be to actually implement a system that takes advantage of their buoyant properties, similar to what the Groningen iGEM team was try to accomplish. It would also be beneficial to characterize the formation of gas vesicles since there may be an aspect of their assembly that can be useful. Finally, gas vesicles are limited in use because gas can only enter through diffusion, limiting control of the buoyant force and preventing storage of gas.


  1. Walsby AE. . pmid:8177173. PubMed HubMed [Liquid]


  3. Bowen CC and Jensen TE. . pmid:17776627. PubMed HubMed [Structure]
  4. Walsby AE. . pmid:4337701. PubMed HubMed [Pressure]
  5. Walsby AE (1982) Permeability of gas vesicles to perfluorocyclobutane. J Gen Microbiol 128:1679–1684


  6. Pfeifer, F., Gas Vesicles of Archaea and Bacteria. In Complex Intracellular Structures in Prokaryotes, Shively, J., Ed. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 2006; Vol. 2, pp 115-140.


  7. Oesterhelt D. . pmid:9729742. PubMed HubMed [Photon]
  8. Englert C, Horne M, and Pfeifer F. . pmid:1703266. PubMed HubMed [Salty]


All Medline abstracts: PubMed HubMed
Personal tools