Next Article in Journal
Bioactive Phytochemicals and Quenching Activity of Radicals in Selected Drought-Resistant Amaranthus tricolor Vegetable Amaranth
Next Article in Special Issue
Reduced Levels of H2S in Diabetes-Associated Osteoarthritis Are Linked to Hyperglycaemia, Nrf-2/HO-1 Signalling Downregulation and Chondrocyte Dysfunction
Previous Article in Journal
The Inflammatory Response in Human Keratinocytes Exposed to Cinnamaldehyde Is Regulated by Nrf2
Previous Article in Special Issue
Uremic Toxin Indoxyl Sulfate Impairs Hydrogen Sulfide Formation in Renal Tubular Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antioxidants
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/antiox11030576
antioxidants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Elemental Sulfur Inhibits Yeast Growth via Producing Toxic Sulfide and Causing Disulfide Stress

by
Tianqi Wang
1,
Yuqing Yang
1,
Menghui Liu
1,
Honglei Liu
1,
Huaiwei Liu
1,
Yongzhen Xia
1,* and
Luying Xun
1,2,*
1
State Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, 72 Binhai Road, Qingdao 266237, China
2
School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 991647520, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antioxidants 2022, 11(3), 576; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11030576
Submission received: 13 February 2022 / Revised: 14 March 2022 / Accepted: 15 March 2022 / Published: 17 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Role of Hydrogen Sulfide in Health and Disease)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Elemental sulfur is a common fungicide, but its inhibition mechanism is unclear. Here, we investigated the effects of elemental sulfur on the single-celled fungus Saccharomyces cerevisiae and showed that the inhibition was due to its function as a strong oxidant. It rapidly entered S. cerevisiae. Inside the cytoplasm, it reacted with glutathione to generate glutathione persulfide that then reacted with another glutathione to produce H2S and glutathione disulfide. H2S reversibly inhibited the oxygen consumption by the mitochondrial electron transport chain, and the accumulation of glutathione disulfide caused disulfide stress and increased reactive oxygen species in S. cerevisiae. Elemental sulfur inhibited the growth of S. cerevisiae; however, it did not kill the yeast for up to 2 h exposure. The combined action of elemental sulfur and hosts’ immune responses may lead to the demise of fungal pathogens.

1. Introduction

Sulfur (S) is the fifth most common element on earth, and elemental sulfur mainly exists as octasulfur (S8) [1]. Elemental sulfur is hardly soluble in water but can be dissolved in organic solvents, such as methanol and acetone [2]. It is widely used as a fungicide to treat plant diseases [3,4] and fungal infections in animals and humans [5,6,7,8]. Although its fungicidal mechanism has been extensively investigated, the consensus has not been reached [9]. An early theory indicated that elemental sulfur is reduced by fungi to produce H2S, which is toxic to cells [10,11,12]. The theory was challenged when potassium permanganate, which immediately oxidizes H2S, did not affect elemental sulfur inhibition to fungi [13,14]. Another theory is that elemental sulfur can enter fungal cells and spores and in the cytoplasm, where it directly inhibits the electron transport chain for respiration via modifying important protein thiols [15,16]. Sato et al. recently reported that glutathione and glutathione reductase is involved in reducing elemental sulfur to H2S in fungi, and the inactivation of glutathione reductase makes the mutant more sensitive to elemental sulfur [17], and the finding supports the latter theory. A reinvestigation may clarify the toxic mechanism of elemental sulfur.
It is unclear how elemental sulfur enters the cells, but it is likely to present as soluble inorganic and organic polysulfide (HSn– and RSn−, n > 2) in the cytoplasm [15,16]. The insoluble elemental sulfur may first become HSn−, which then enters the cell [17]. Since glutathione (GSH) is the main low molecular weight (LMW) thiol in plants, animals, fungi, and most bacteria [18], it can reduce elemental sulfur to H2S. We recently reported how HSn− and GSn− are converted to S8 in the bacterial cytoplasm [19]. A recombinant Escherichia coli strain with cloned sulfide:quinone oxidoreductase oxidizes H2S to HSn− and glutathione polysulfide (GSn−) in the cytoplasm, where GSH rapidly reacts with HSn− and GSn− to produce glutathione disulfide (GSSG) and H2S. When intracellular GSH is depleted to low levels, HSn− elongates to HS9− before forming S8, which is the common form of elemental sulfur. This observation promoted us to investigate whether the elemental sulfur toxicity against fungi was due to its rapid reaction with GSH to produce H2S and GSSG, in which elemental sulfur acts as an oxidant.
Elemental sulfur, HSn−, and RSn− are also known as sulfane sulfur, as they either contain or can generate zero-valent sulfur [20]. HSn− and RSn− may function as antioxidants because they are more nucleophilic than small thiols for scavenging reactive oxygen species (ROS) [21]. Here, they function as reductants. Their most important antioxidant activity is to scavenge hydroxyl radical due to the much faster reaction rate than that between DNA and the radical [22]. Sulfane sulfur also displays electrophilic properties, as it can transfer the electrophilic zero-valent sulfur to protein thiols to generate protein-SSH, which may affect certain enzyme activities or functions [23,24]. Since protein persulfidation may protect protein thiols from irreversible oxidation, this is also considered an antioxidant property [25]. However, the similarity in chemical properties between H2O2 and H2S2 (or HSn−) has promoted DeLeon et al. to propose that sulfane sulfur species may function as oxidants [26]. Thus, sulfane sulfur possesses both reductant and oxidant properties.
Here, we report that elemental sulfur acted as a strong oxidant to inhibit the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, as it quickly entered the cytoplasm and reacted with GSH to produce H2S and GSSG. H2S further inhibited the electron transport chain and glucose oxidation, and GSSG induced disulfide stress and oxidative stress to cells. However, elemental sulfur did not kill the cells of S. cerevisiae, and the inhibition effect is reversible. Our results explained the mechanisms of elemental sulfur toxicity against S. cerevisiae, which offers insights into its action against pathogenic fungi.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Strains, Culture Conditions, and Reagents

Escherichia coli MG1655 (wild type) and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 (wild type) were grown in lysogeny broth (LB) medium (0.5% yeast extract, 1% peptone, and 1% NaCl) at 37 °C with shaking. Saccharomyces cerevisiae BY4742 (MATα his3∆1 leu2∆0 lys2∆0 ura3∆0) was grown in yeast extract-peptone-dextrose (YPD) medium (1% yeast extract, 2% peptone, and 2% glucose) at 30 °C with shaking. Sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS, H2S donor) and sublimed sulfur powder were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). The elemental sulfur stock solution was prepared by dissolving sublimed sulfur powder in acetone.

2.2. Preparation of Resting Cells

The selected microorganisms were cultured in a 50 mL medium and grown with shaking. Cells were then centrifuged at 5000× g for 10 min. The harvested cells were gently washed once and suspended in 100 mM phosphate buffer saline (PBS) buffer (pH = 7.4) to get the resting cells. When ZnCl2 was used, the resting cells were washed and resuspended in 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH = 7.4), and 200 or 500 μM ZnCl2 was added to the cell suspension.

2.3. Measurement of Growth Curves

Fresh cells of E. coli, S. aureus, S. cerevisiae were inoculated in 5 mL medium and grown overnight at suitable temperature with shaking at 200 rpm. The cells with the initial OD600nm at 0.05 were transferred into 400 µL fresh medium in a 48-well plate. If necessary, elemental sulfur at defined concentrations was mixed with the cultures. Growth curves were plotted by measured OD600nm after incubating the plate in a microplate reader (Synergy H1, BioTek, Winooski, VT, USA) at suitable temperatures with shaking.
To examine the growth inhibition effect of GSSG on S. cerevisiae, the resting cells at OD600nm = 2.0 were incubated with 200 μM elemental sulfur solved in acetone or acetone alone at 30 °C for 30 min before they were washed and suspended in 100 mM PBS. These cells were transferred into 400 µL YPD medium with initial OD600nm at 0.05 in a 48-well plate at 30 °C with shaking. The growth curves were measured by using the microplate reader.

2.4. Minimal Inhibit Concentration (MIC) Assay

E. coli, S. aureus, S. cerevisiae were cultured to OD600nm of 0.5. Equal amounts of cells (OD600nm = 0.05) were transferred into 400 µL of the appropriate medium containing different concentrations of elemental sulfur in 24-well plates. The 24-well plates were incubated at the proper temperature for 12 h to observe and determine MIC.

2.5. Survival Assay

The resting cells of S. cerevisiae were prepared and aliquot with OD600nm of 2.0. Indicated concentrations of elemental sulfur were incubated with the cells. Then, the cells were incubated at 30 °C with shaking. At defined time intervals, cells were taken, diluted, and spread onto YPD solid plates (YPD medium with 2.0% agar). The plates were incubated for 48 h before counting. Three parallel experiments were performed to get STDEV, and the data could be used for statistical analysis.

2.6. The Detection of H2S and Elemental Sulfur

For H2S analysis, the sample was centrifuged at 13,000× g for 2 min, and 50 μL of the supernatant was derivatized with monobromobimane (mBBr) and detected by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), according to a published method [27]. A reported method was used for elemental sulfur analysis [28,29]. In brief, the sample was directly derivatized with methyl trifluoromethanesulfonate in methanol and was detected by using HPLC with UV detection.

2.7. Measuring Oxygen Consumption

Resting cells at OD600nm of 2.0 were incubated with defined concentrations of H2S or elemental sulfur at 30 °C. Glucose was immediately added to a final concentration of 2%. The dissolved oxygen was monitored by using an Orion RDO meter (Thermo Scientific Inc., Waltham, WA, USA). Before use, the RDO meter was calibrated with air-saturated water according to the manufacturers’ instructions. The resting cells without mixing with H2 or elemental sulfur were used as control.

2.8. GSH and GSSG Detection

The S. cerevisiae resting cells at an OD600nm of 2.0 were incubated with elemental sulfur at 30 °C for 30 min. A total of 25 mL of resting cells were centrifuged, washed, and suspended in 2 mL of a stock buffer (143 mM sodium phosphate and 6.3 mM Na4EDTA, pH = 7.4). Samples were added with 0.1 mL of 10% 5-sulfosalicylic acid [30] and broken through a pressure cell (SPCH-18, Stansted Fluid Power Ltd., Harlow, UK). GSH and GSSG in the cell lysate were assayed by using a kit (Beyotime, Shanghai, China).

2.9. ROS Determination

Cellular ROS was measured using the DCFH-DA probe (Beyotime, Shanghai, China). The resting cells of S. cerevisiae at an OD600nm of 2.0 were incubated with 10 μM DCFH-DA at 37 °C for 30 min in the dark and were washed three times with 100 mM PBS (pH = 7.4) to remove the extra DCFH-DA. Indicated concentrations of elemental sulfur or H2S were added into the cells. The reaction mixtures were incubated at 37 °C for 1 h in the dark. Then, the fluorescence of the cells was measured using a microplate reader (BioTek, Synergy H1) with the excitation wavelength at 488 nm and the emission wavelength at 525 nm.

3. Results

3.1. Elemental Sulfur Inhibits the Growth of S. cerevisiae

The effect of elemental sulfur on E. coli, S. aureus, and S. cerevisiae was tested. E. coli was the least affected (Figure 1A). It could grow even with 1 mM elemental sulfur, but the final OD600nm was only one-quarter of that without elemental sulfur. As elemental sulfur was dissolved in acetone, the same volume of acetone used to dissolve elemental sulfur was also tested, and the volume of acetone used to deliver 1 mM elemental sulfur also inhibited the final OD600nm of E. coli, but the inhibition by acetone on S. aureus and S. cerevisiae did not affect the final OD600nm (Figure S1). The reduced growth yield for E. coli was likely due to the effect of acetone. S. aureus and S. cerevisiae were completely inhibited by 1 mM elemental sulfur (Figure 1B,C). With 500 μM elemental sulfur, both S. aureus and S. cerevisiae grew as similar as the control groups without elemental sulfur. One apparent effect is that the log phase of cell growth was prolonged (Figure 1B,C). Elemental sulfur has a more serious inhibitory effect on yeast growth than these two bacteria species (Figure 1). Second, the MIC of elemental sulfur to cells was assessed. The MIC values for S. cerevisiae and S. aureus were 200 and 1000 μM, respectively (Figure S2). Because the growth of E. coli was affected by acetone (Figure S1), the MIC value for E. coli was not measured. Hence, the MIC value for yeast is lower than that of bacteria too. Third, the viability of S. cerevisiae in the presence of 100, 200, 500, and 1000 μM was detected. Within 2 h exposure, elemental sulfur did not show significantly lethal to S. cerevisiae cells (Figure 1D). These results indicate that elemental sulfur inhibits the growth of S. cerevisiae, but does not kill the cells.

3.2. Elemental Sulfur Enters S. cerevisiae to Produce H2S That Inhibits the Electron Transport Chain

When S. cerevisiae was incubated with elemental sulfur, it was quickly consumed, and H2S was rapidly generated within minutes (Figure 2A,B). Oxygen consumption by the yeast was also inhibited after incubating with 100 μM elemental sulfur for 10 min (Figure 2C). The inhibition was likely due to the produced H2S, as the incubation of S. cerevisiae with 10 μM H2S for 1 or 10 min severely inhibited its oxygen consumption (Figure 2C), while the incubation with 10 μM elemental sulfur for 10 min did not affect its oxygen consumption (Figure 2C). Adding 10 μM elemental sulfur to the resting cells, S. cerevisiae produced 2.8 μM H2S (Figure 2B), which was not sufficient to inhibit the electron transport chain. Alternatively, S. cerevisiae was first incubated with 10 μM H2S for 10 min. Then, the cells were collected by centrifugation to remove H2S. The oxygen consumption by the resuspended cells was not inhibited (Figure 2D), indicating that the H2S inhibition on the oxygen consumption by S. cerevisiae is reversible. On the other hand, the oxygen consumption by E. coli was not affected by 50 to 200 μM H2S or elemental sulfur (Figure S3).
Zn2+ could quickly react with H2S to form the precipitation of ZnS. Hence, Zn2+ was used to confirm that H2S was responsible for the inhibition of oxygen consumption by S. cerevisiae after incubating with elemental sulfur. Oxygen consumption by S. cerevisiae was not inhibited by 200 μM ZnCl2 (Figure 3A). When the resting cells of S. cerevisiae were incubated with 200 μM ZnCl2 and different amounts of H2S, oxygen consumption of the resting cells were tested. A total of 50 μM H2S did not affect the oxygen consumption, but 100 and 200 μM H2S did (Figure 3B). Further, 200 μM ZnCl2 completely stopped the inhibition of 200 μM elemental sulfur on oxygen consumption by the yeast (Figure 3A). Collectively, these results confirm that elemental sulfur is reduced to H2S, which reversibly inhibits the electron transport chain for oxygen consumption.

3.3. Elemental Sulfur Enters S. cerevisiae and Generates Disulfide Stress

After S. cerevisiae cells were incubated with 200 μM elemental sulfur for 30 min, the cellular GSH was greatly reduced, and GSSG has increased accordingly (Figure 4A,B). The GSSG fraction of the total glutathione (GSH + GSSG) changed from 12.1% to 90.3% after the incubation (Figure 4C). A total of 100 to 500 μM ZnCl2 in the buffer did not stop the oxidation of GSH by using 100 μM elemental sulfur, as the percentage of GSSG in S. cerevisiae cells was not affected by ZnCl2 (Figure 4D).
The presence of GSSG would cause disulfide stress on cells [31,32]. We also detected intracellular ROS after the incubation of S. cerevisiae with elemental sulfur for 1 h. A total of 200 and 500 μM elemental sulfur increased intracellular ROS by 60.2% and 194.9%, respectively (Figure 5A), indicating that the cells were under oxidative stress. When S. cerevisiae cells that had accumulated GSSG were inoculated into a fresh YPD medium, its growth rate was only initially inhibited (Figure 5B). It seems that the cells reduced GSSG in vivo and restored redox homeostasis before growing.

4. Discussion

Our results indicate that the fungicidal effect of elemental sulfur is due to its function as a strong oxidant (Figure 6). Inside S. cerevisiae, it is reduced to H2S, which inhibits the electron transport chain, and GSH is oxidized to GSSG creating disulfide stress and oxidative stress [33,34,35]. Elemental sulfur does not directly inhibit the electron transport chain, as ZnCl2 stopped the inhibition of aerobic respiration by sequestering the produced H2S but not affecting GSSG formation (Figure 4). It is known that fungal cells and spores can rapidly take up elemental sulfur [16]. Because elemental sulfur is insoluble, it has been hypothesized that elemental sulfur is converted to HSn– that passes through the cell membrane and enters the cell [17]. Elemental sulfur likely reacts with the cell-released H2S to produce HSn− [36]. This process is challenged with our results, as Zn2+ stopped H2S inhibition of the electron transport chain, but not GSSG formation after elemental sulfur exposure (Figure 4). Our results implied that elemental sulfur directly enters the cell and then reacts with GSH to produce H2S and GSSG, which is spontaneous and quick [19]. The diffusion of H2S into the gas phase may facilitate GSSG formation [37,38]. The mechanism of elemental sulfur uptake warrants further investigation.
The fungicidal effect of elemental sulfur via H2S has been proposed [9], as H2S is toxic [39,40,41]. The toxicity of H2S is mainly through inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase of the electron transport chain [41,42,43]. However, H2S alone is not sufficient for the toxicity of elemental sulfur [13,14], and blocking H2S production makes yeast cells more sensitive to elemental sulfur [17]. H2S inhibition will gradually recover, accompanied by the volatilization and decomposition of H2S [44]. Our results also support that the inhibition of H2S on the yeast electron transport chain is reversible (Figure 2). The inhibition of elemental sulfur on the aerobic respiration of E. coli is minimal (Figure S3), which is consistent with the fact that the bacterium does not use cytochrome c oxidase for aerobic respiration [45]. Thus, H2S is partially responsible for the toxic effect of elemental sulfur.
The accumulation of GSSG will lead to disulfide stress [31,32]; GSSG is normally reduced by glutathione reductase back to GSH [46]. When a large amount of elemental sulfur enters the cell, glutathione reductase fails to reduce the rapidly produced GSSG back to GSH, leading to GSSG accumulation (Figure 4). This phenomenon is consistent with the result in our previous study [19]. The accumulation of GSSG induces disulfide stress [17], which is accompanied by increased ROS in S. cerevisiae after exposure to elemental sulfur (Figure 5). The increased ROS is likely due to the lack of GSH to remove ROS [33]. The accumulation of GSSG is an indication of protein thiol oxidation and modification, which affect enzyme activities and gene regulation [21]. When H2S is removed, the yeast cells resume O2 consumption (Figure 2). The cells with GSSG accumulation displayed a delayed growth (Figure 5), indicating that the cells need to reduce GSSG before resuming normal growth. Sulfide has been reported to affect oxidative stress [47,48], but we did not detect the change of reactive oxygen species in S. cerevisiae after exposing it to 200 μM H2S (Figure 5).
Oxidative stress refers to a state in which the oxidant and antioxidant effects in the cell are out of balance with more oxidants [49]. After cells are subjected to oxidative stress, more peroxides and free radicals are produced. These ROS damage cell proteins, lipids, and DNA [49,50]. Exposure to elemental sulfur results in GSH oxidation, and GSH deficiency leads to increased ROS and oxidative stress [33]. This can explain why other studies have shown that elemental sulfur can damage cell structure and proteins [51]. ROS may also cause apoptosis of the yeast [52], but we did not see severe cell death after the cells were exposed to elemental sulfur.
Elemental sulfur in the form of octasulfur is the most stable form of zero-valent sulfur, which could act both as nucleophile and electrophile [53]. When elemental sulfur enters the cytoplasm, it reacts with cellular thiols to become HSn− and GSn− [19], both of which are more reactive than thiols as the reductants [21]. The electrophilic property of HSn− and GSn− is often emphasized for the transfer of a sulfur atom to protein thiols, which causes protein thiol persulfidation (RSSH) and other modifications, affective enzyme and gene regulator activities, due to signaling and regulating effects [23,54,55,56,57]. Persulfides react with cellular thiols to produce disulfides. Under normal physiological conditions, glutathione reductase and other enzymes will reduce disulfides back to thiols. The effect of their function as oxidants is muted in most cases. However, when elemental sulfur is supplied in excess, it leads to disulfide accumulation, its role as an oxidant becomes clear.
Based on previous reports and our findings, we proposed the inhibition mechanism of elemental sulfur (Figure 6). Elemental sulfur enters S. cerevisiae, and it reacts with GSH to form GSSH, which will further react with another GSH to form H2S and GSSG. The produced H2S inhibits the electron transport chain (Figure 2). The inhibition of the electron transport chain decreases ATP synthesis and glucose metabolism [58]. The accumulation of GSSG induces disulfide stress and oxidative stress, which collectively slow down yeast growth (Figure 5). The fungicidal mechanism of elemental sulfur is mainly through the produced H2S and GSSG, which will slow down the growth of the yeast. Hence, the toxic effect of elemental sulfur is due to its function as an oxidant.
The toxic mechanism toward the yeast should also apply to pathogenic fungi. If elemental sulfur is used as a fungicide, its inhibition of pathogenic fungi could provide the immune systems of plants and animals a chance to destroy them. Further, elemental sulfur is often used to protect grapevines, raspberries, and blackberries against parasitic mites, such as Calepitrimerus vitis, Colomerus vitis, and Acalitus orthomera [59,60]. Our findings may also apply to the toxicity against mites. These findings extended our understanding of the toxic mechanism of elemental sulfur, which is instructive for the treatment of fungal infections in plants and animals and the protection of plants against pathogenic mites.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antiox11030576/s1, Figure S1: The effect of acetone on the growth of E. coli, S. aureus, and S. cerevisiae. Figure S2: The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay of E. coli, S. aureus, and S. cerevisiae. Figure S3: The effects of H2S and elemental sulfur on O2 consumption by E. coli.

Author Contributions

T.W., Y.Y., M.L. and H.L. (Honglei Liu) acquired and analyzed the data. H.L. (Huaiwei Liu), Y.X. and L.X. supervised the research. T.W., Y.X. and L.X. designed the study and wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China, grant numbers 91951202, 31870085, and 31961133015.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and its Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We thank the support of the Qilu Youth Scholar Startup Funding of SDU (to Y.X.) and the support from the State Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Meyer, B. Elemental sulfur. Chem. Rev. 1976, 76, 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Boulegue, J. Solubility of elemental sulfur in water at 298 K. Phosphorus Sulfur Relat. Elem. 1978, 5, 127–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cooper, R.M.; Williams, J.S. Elemental sulphur as an induced antifungal substance in plant defence. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55, 1947–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Williams, J.S.; Cooper, R.M. Elemental sulphur is produced by diverse plant families as a component of defence against fungal and bacterial pathogens. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2003, 63, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gupta, A.K.; Nicol, K. The use of sulfur in dermatology. J. Drugs Dermatol. JDD 2004, 3, 427–431. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Liu, Z.; Wang, R.; Zhang, C.; Guo, S.; Chen, P. A case of vitiligo cured with cucumber and sulfur. Phytother. Res. PTR 2019, 33, 1241–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Leslie, K.; Millington, G.; Levell, N. Sulphur and skin: From Satan to Saddam! J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2004, 3, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Williams, J.S.; Hall, S.A.; Hawkesford, M.J.; Beale, M.H.; Cooper, R.M. Elemental sulfur and thiol accumulation in tomato and defense against a fungal vascular pathogen. Plant Physiol. 2002, 128, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tweedy, B. Inorganic sulfur as a fungicide. In Residue Reviews; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1981; pp. 43–68. [Google Scholar]
  10. McCallan, S.; Wilcoxon, F. The fungicidal action of sulphur. II. In The Production of Hydrogen Sulphide by Sulphured Leaves and Spores and its Toxicity to Spores; Boyce Thompson Institute: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1931; Volume 3, pp. 13–38. [Google Scholar]
  11. Barker, B.T.P. Investigations on the fungicidal action of sulphur. IV. Third Progress report. In Investigations on the Fungicidal Action of Sulphur. IV. Third Progress Report; Long Ashton: Bristol, UK, 1930; pp. 130–148. [Google Scholar]
  12. Miller, L.P.; Mccallan, S.; Weed, R.M. Quantitative Studies on the Role of Hydrogen Sulfide Formation in the Toxication of Sulfur to fungus Spores; Contributions from Boyce Thompson Institute: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1953; Volume 17, pp. 151–171. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamilton, J.M. Studies of the fungicidal action of certain dusts and sprays in the control of apple scab. Phytopathology 1931, 21, 445–523. [Google Scholar]
  14. Yarwood, C. Therapeutic treatments for rusts. Phytopathology 1948, 38, 542–551. [Google Scholar]
  15. Beffa, T.; Pezet, R.; Turian, G. Multiple-site inhibition by colloidal elemental sulfur (S) of respiration by mitochondria from young dormant α spores of Phomopsis viticola. Physiol. Plant. 1987, 69, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Beffa, T. Inhibitory action of elemental sulphur (S) on fungal spores. Can. J. Microbiol. 1993, 39, 731–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sato, I.; Shimatani, K.; Fujita, K.; Abe, T.; Shimizu, M.; Fujii, T.; Hoshino, T.; Takaya, N. Glutathione reductase/glutathione is responsible for cytotoxic elemental sulfur tolerance via polysulfide shuttle in fungi. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 20283–20291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Meister, A.; Anderson, M.E. Glutathione. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1983, 52, 711–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, T.; Ran, M.; Li, X.; Liu, Y.; Xin, Y.; Liu, H.; Liu, H.; Xia, Y.; Xun, L. The pathway of sulfide oxidation to octasulfur globules in the cytoplasm of aerobic bacteria. Appl. Env. Microb. 2021. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Toohey, J.I.; Cooper, A.J. Thiosulfoxide (sulfane) sulfur: New chemistry and new regulatory roles in biology. Molecules 2014, 19, 12789–12813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ida, T.; Sawa, T.; Ihara, H.; Tsuchiya, Y.; Watanabe, Y.; Kumagai, Y.; Suematsu, M.; Motohashi, H.; Fujii, S.; Matsunaga, T. Reactive cysteine persulfides and S-polythiolation regulate oxidative stress and redox signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 7606–7611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Wang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, X.; Xin, Y.; Xia, Y.; Xun, L.; Liu, H. Rhodanese Rdl2 produces reactive sulfur species to protect mitochondria from reactive oxygen species. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2021, 177, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mustafa, A.K.; Gadalla, M.M.; Sen, N.; Kim, S.; Mu, W.; Gazi, S.K.; Barrow, R.K.; Yang, G.; Wang, R.; Snyder, S.H. H2S signals through protein S-sulfhydration. Sci. Signal 2009, 2, ra72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Hou, N.; Yan, Z.; Fan, K.; Li, H.; Zhao, R.; Xia, Y.; Xun, L.; Liu, H. OxyR senses sulfane sulfur and activates the genes for its removal in Escherichia coli. Redox. Biol. 2019, 26, 101293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Paul, B.D.; Snyder, S.H. Protein sulfhydration. In Methods in Enzymology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 555, pp. 79–90. [Google Scholar]
  26. DeLeon, E.R.; Gao, Y.; Huang, E.; Arif, M.; Arora, N.; Divietro, A.; Patel, S.; Olson, K.R. A case of mistaken identity: Are reactive oxygen species actually reactive sulfide species? Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2016, 310, R549–R560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Kimura, Y.; Toyofuku, Y.; Koike, S.; Shibuya, N.; Nagahara, N.; Lefer, D.; Ogasawara, Y.; Kimura, H. Identification of H2S3 and H2S produced by 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase in the brain. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 14774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Li, H.J.; Liu, H.W.; Chen, Z.G.; Zhao, R.; Wang, Q.D.; Ran, M.X.; Xia, Y.Z.; Hu, X.; Liu, J.H.; Xian, M.; et al. Using resonance synchronous spectroscopy to characterize the reactivity and electrophilicity of biologically relevant sulfane sulfur. Redox. Biol. 2019, 24, 101179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kamyshny, A.; Goifman, A.; Gun, J.; Dan, R.; Lev, O. Equilibrium Distribution of Polysulfide Ions in Aqueous Solutions at 25 °C: A New Approach for the Study of Polysulfides’ Equilibria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 38, 6633–6644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aslund, F.; Zheng, M.; Beckwith, J.; Storz, G. Regulation of the OxyR transcription factor by hydrogen peroxide and the cellular thiol—Disulfide status. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 6161–6165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Chakravarthi, S.; Jessop, C.E.; Bulleid, N.J. The role of glutathione in disulphide bond formation and endoplasmic—Reticulum—Generated oxidative stress. EMBO Rep. 2006, 7, 271–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sen, A.; Imlay, J. How microbes defend themselves from incoming hydrogen peroxide. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moreno, M.L.; Escobar, J.; Izquierdo-Alvarez, A.; Gil, A.; Perez, S.; Pereda, J.; Zapico, I.; Vento, M.; Sabater, L.; Marina, A.; et al. Disulfide stress: A novel type of oxidative stress in acute pancreatitis. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2014, 70, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Leichert, L.I.O.; Scharf, C.; Hecker, M. Global characterization of disulfide stress in Bacillus subtilis. J. Bacteriol. 2003, 185, 1967–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Hansen, R.E.; Roth, D.; Winther, J.R. Quantifying the global cellular thiol–disulfide status. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 422–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Kamyshny, A., Jr. Improved cyanolysis protocol for detection of zero-valent sulfur in natural aquatic systems. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 2009, 7, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Francoleon, N.E.; Carrington, S.J.; Fukuto, J.M. The reaction of H2S with oxidized thiols: Generation of persulfides and implications to H2S biology. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2011, 516, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vasas, A.; Dóka, É.; Fábián, I.; Nagy, P. Kinetic and thermodynamic studies on the disulfide-bond reducing potential of hydrogen sulfide. Nitric Oxide 2015, 46, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Baskar, R.; Bian, J. Hydrogen sulfide gas has cell growth regulatory role. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2011, 656, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Takeuchi, H.; Setoguchi, T.; Machigashira, M.; Kanbara, K.; Izumi, Y. Hydrogen sulfide inhibits cell proliferation and induces cell cycle arrest via an elevated p21Cip1 level in Ca9–22 cells. J. Periodontal Res. 2008, 43, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jiang, J.; Chan, A.; Ali, S.; Saha, A.; Haushalter, K.J.; Lam, W.-L.M.; Glasheen, M.; Parker, J.; Brenner, M.; Mahon, S.B. Hydrogen sulfide—Mechanisms of toxicity and development of an antidote. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 20831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Petersen, L.C. The effect of inhibitors on the oxygen kinetics of cytochrome c oxidase. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1977, 460, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hill, B.C.; Woon, T.C.; Nicholls, P.; Peterson, J.; Greenwood, C.; Thomson, A.J. Interactions of sulphide and other ligands with cytochrome c oxidase. An electron-paramagnetic-resonance study. Biochem. J. 1984, 224, 591–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Di Meo, I.; Fagiolari, G.; Prelle, A.; Viscomi, C.; Zeviani, M.; Tiranti, V. Chronic exposure to sulfide causes accelerated degradation of cytochrome c oxidase in ethylmalonic encephalopathy. Antioxid. Redox. Signal. 2011, 15, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Korshunov, S.; Imlay, K.R.; Imlay, J.A. The cytochrome bd oxidase of Escherichia coli prevents respiratory inhibition by endogenous and exogenous hydrogen sulfide. Mol. Microbiol. 2016, 101, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. MANNERVIK, B. The enzymes of glutathione metabolism: An overview. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 1987, 15, 717–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Xue, H.; Yuan, P.; Ni, J.; Li, C.; Shao, D.; Liu, J.; Shen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, W. H2S inhibits hyperglycemia-induced intrarenal renin-angiotensin system activation via attenuation of reactive oxygen species generation. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e74366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Attene-Ramos, M.S.; Wagner, E.D.; Gaskins, H.R.; Plewa, M.J. Hydrogen sulfide induces direct radical-associated DNA damage. Mol. Cancer Res. 2007, 5, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Pizzino, G.; Irrera, N.; Cucinotta, M.; Pallio, G.; Mannino, F.; Arcoraci, V.; Squadrito, F.; Altavilla, D.; Bitto, A. Oxidative Stress: Harms and Benefits for Human Health. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2017, 2017, 8416763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kaur, R.; Kaur, J.; Mahajan, J.; Kumar, R.; Arora, S. Oxidative stress—Implications, source and its prevention. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 1599–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Choudhury, S.R.; Ghosh, M.; Goswami, A. Inhibitory effects of sulfur nanoparticles on membrane lipids of Aspergillus niger: A novel route of fungistasis. Curr. Microbiol. 2012, 65, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Madeo, F.; Fröhlich, E.; Ligr, M.; Grey, M.; Sigrist, S.J.; Wolf, D.H.; Fröhlich, K.-U. Oxygen stress: A regulator of apoptosis in yeast. J. Cell Biol. 1999, 145, 757–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sawa, T.; Takata, T.; Matsunaga, T.; Ihara, H.; Motohashi, H.; Akaike, T. Chemical Biology of Reactive Sulfur Species: Hydrolysis-Driven Equilibrium of Polysulfides as a Determinant of Physiological Functions. Antioxid. Redox. Sign. 2022. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Luebke, J.L.; Shen, J.C.; Bruce, K.E.; Kehl-Fie, T.E.; Peng, H.; Skaar, E.P.; Giedroc, D.P. The CsoR-like sulfurtransferase repressor (CstR) is a persulfide sensor in Staphylococcus aureus. Mol. Microbiol. 2014, 94, 1343–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Li, H.J.; Li, J.; Lu, C.J.; Xia, Y.Z.; Xin, Y.F.; Liu, H.L.; Xun, L.Y.; Liu, H.W. FisR activates sigma(54)-dependent transcription of sulfide-oxidizing genes in Cupriavidus pinatubonensis JMP134. Mol. Microbiol. 2017, 105, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Shimizu, T.; Shen, J.; Fang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Hori, K.; Trinidad, J.C.; Bauer, C.E.; Giedroc, D.P.; Masuda, S. Sulfide-responsive transcriptional repressor SqrR functions as a master regulator of sulfide-dependent photosynthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 2355–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Xu, H.; Xuan, G.; Liu, H.; Xia, Y.; Xun, L. Sulfane Sulfur Is a Strong Inducer of the Multiple Antibiotic Resistance Regulator MarR in Escherichia coli. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhao, R.Z.; Jiang, S.; Zhang, L.; Yu, Z.B. Mitochondrial electron transport chain, ROS generation and uncoupling. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2019, 44, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Haddadi, A.; Mirfakhraei, S.; Aramideh, S. Effects of abamectin, volk oil, detergent and sulfur in control of grape erineum mite, Colomerus vitis Pagenstecher (Acari: Eriophyidae) in vineyards of West-Azerbaijan Province, Iran. Ann. Biol. 2019, 35, 94–104. [Google Scholar]
  60. Arreguín-Zavala, J.d.J.; Otero-Colina, G.; Pineda, S.; López-Bautista, E.; Flores-Martínez, B.A.; Rebollar-Alviter, Á. Evaluation of different control strategies for the management of redberry disease associated with Acalitus orthomera (Eriophyoidea: Eriophyidae) in commercial blackberry crops. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2021, 128, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antioxidants 11 00576 g001 550
Figure 1. Characteristics of the response of E. coli, S. aureus, and S. cerevisiae to elemental sulfur. The elemental sulfur inhibited the growth of E. coli (A), S. aureus (B), and S. cerevisiae (C). Elemental sulfur was added to the cell cultures at the concentrations as indicated in the figure. (D) Survival assay for S. cerevisiae. Indicated concentrations of elemental sulfur were added to the resting cells of S. cerevisiae at an OD600nm of 2.0. After 30, 60, and 120 min, samples were diluted and plated onto YPD plates, respectively. Colonies counting was performed after 48 h incubation at 30 °C. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Figure 1. Characteristics of the response of E. coli, S. aureus, and S. cerevisiae to elemental sulfur. The elemental sulfur inhibited the growth of E. coli (A), S. aureus (B), and S. cerevisiae (C). Elemental sulfur was added to the cell cultures at the concentrations as indicated in the figure. (D) Survival assay for S. cerevisiae. Indicated concentrations of elemental sulfur were added to the resting cells of S. cerevisiae at an OD600nm of 2.0. After 30, 60, and 120 min, samples were diluted and plated onto YPD plates, respectively. Colonies counting was performed after 48 h incubation at 30 °C. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Antioxidants 11 00576 g001
Antioxidants 11 00576 g002 550
Figure 2. H2S inhibits the electron transport chain of S. cerevisiae. After adding elemental sulfur to the resting cells of S. cerevisiae, the residual concentrations of elemental sulfur (A) and H2S (B) were analyzed at different time intervals. (C) Oxygen consumption was measured after incubating 10 and 100 μM elemental sulfur for 10 min or 10 μM H2S with the resting cells of S. cerevisiae for 1 or 10 min, respectively. (D) The resting cells of S. cerevisiae were mixed with 10 μM H2S first for 10 min. Then, the oxygen consumption was measured after H2S was removed. The resting cells of S. cerevisiae used were OD600nm = 2.0. The 2% glucose was added as the substrate of the electron transport chain. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Figure 2. H2S inhibits the electron transport chain of S. cerevisiae. After adding elemental sulfur to the resting cells of S. cerevisiae, the residual concentrations of elemental sulfur (A) and H2S (B) were analyzed at different time intervals. (C) Oxygen consumption was measured after incubating 10 and 100 μM elemental sulfur for 10 min or 10 μM H2S with the resting cells of S. cerevisiae for 1 or 10 min, respectively. (D) The resting cells of S. cerevisiae were mixed with 10 μM H2S first for 10 min. Then, the oxygen consumption was measured after H2S was removed. The resting cells of S. cerevisiae used were OD600nm = 2.0. The 2% glucose was added as the substrate of the electron transport chain. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Antioxidants 11 00576 g002
Antioxidants 11 00576 g003 550
Figure 3. Zn2+ prevents H2S from inhibiting yeast from consuming O2. (A) Oxygen consumption was determined after incubating 200 μM ZnCl2 with S. cerevisiae resting cells in the presence or absence of 200 μM elemental sulfur for 10 min. (B) Oxygen consumption was determined after S. cerevisiae resting cells were incubated with different concentrations of H2S for 10 min in the presence of 200 μM ZnCl2. The S. cerevisiae resting cells used in the study were OD600nm = 2.0. The 2% glucose was added as the fuel of the electron transport chain. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Figure 3. Zn2+ prevents H2S from inhibiting yeast from consuming O2. (A) Oxygen consumption was determined after incubating 200 μM ZnCl2 with S. cerevisiae resting cells in the presence or absence of 200 μM elemental sulfur for 10 min. (B) Oxygen consumption was determined after S. cerevisiae resting cells were incubated with different concentrations of H2S for 10 min in the presence of 200 μM ZnCl2. The S. cerevisiae resting cells used in the study were OD600nm = 2.0. The 2% glucose was added as the fuel of the electron transport chain. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Antioxidants 11 00576 g003
Antioxidants 11 00576 g004 550
Figure 4. The effect of elemental sulfur on reduced and oxidized glutathione. The concentration of (A) GSH and (B) GSSG were measured in the resting cells of S. cerevisiae after incubation with elemental sulfur for 30 min. (C) The proportion of GSSG is increased after elemental sulfur was incubated with S. cerevisiae resting cells. (D) The proportion of GSSG was increased after elemental sulfur was incubated with S. cerevisiae resting cells in the presence of up to 500 μM ZnCl2. The S. cerevisiae resting cells used was at an OD600nm of 2.0. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Figure 4. The effect of elemental sulfur on reduced and oxidized glutathione. The concentration of (A) GSH and (B) GSSG were measured in the resting cells of S. cerevisiae after incubation with elemental sulfur for 30 min. (C) The proportion of GSSG is increased after elemental sulfur was incubated with S. cerevisiae resting cells. (D) The proportion of GSSG was increased after elemental sulfur was incubated with S. cerevisiae resting cells in the presence of up to 500 μM ZnCl2. The S. cerevisiae resting cells used was at an OD600nm of 2.0. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Antioxidants 11 00576 g004
Antioxidants 11 00576 g005 550
Figure 5. The accumulation of GSSG caused oxidative stress and inhibited cell growth. (A) Intracellular ROS of S. cerevisiae resting cells with or without GSSG accumulation. The resting cells of S. cerevisiae were set at OD600nm = 2.0. (B) The growth of S. cerevisiae with or without GSSG accumulation. The initial OD600nm was adjusted to 0.05. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Figure 5. The accumulation of GSSG caused oxidative stress and inhibited cell growth. (A) Intracellular ROS of S. cerevisiae resting cells with or without GSSG accumulation. The resting cells of S. cerevisiae were set at OD600nm = 2.0. (B) The growth of S. cerevisiae with or without GSSG accumulation. The initial OD600nm was adjusted to 0.05. Data are averages of three parallel experiments with standard deviations. ES, elemental sulfur.
Antioxidants 11 00576 g005
Antioxidants 11 00576 g006 550
Figure 6. The inhibition mechanisms of elemental sulfur against S. cerevisiae.
Figure 6. The inhibition mechanisms of elemental sulfur against S. cerevisiae.
Antioxidants 11 00576 g006
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, T.; Yang, Y.; Liu, M.; Liu, H.; Liu, H.; Xia, Y.; Xun, L. Elemental Sulfur Inhibits Yeast Growth via Producing Toxic Sulfide and Causing Disulfide Stress. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11030576

AMA Style

Wang T, Yang Y, Liu M, Liu H, Liu H, Xia Y, Xun L. Elemental Sulfur Inhibits Yeast Growth via Producing Toxic Sulfide and Causing Disulfide Stress. Antioxidants. 2022; 11(3):576. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11030576

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Tianqi, Yuqing Yang, Menghui Liu, Honglei Liu, Huaiwei Liu, Yongzhen Xia, and Luying Xun. 2022. "Elemental Sulfur Inhibits Yeast Growth via Producing Toxic Sulfide and Causing Disulfide Stress" Antioxidants 11, no. 3: 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11030576

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop