In silico characterization of a metatranscriptome-derived stress-responsive putative DnaJ/HSP40-domain-containing fragment associated with heavy metal homeostasis

Priyanka Sharma; Bhupendra Narayan Singh Yadav; Shristy Maurya; Rajiv Kumar Yadav

doi:10.7324/jabb.2026.311545

Abstract References Supplementary Material Article Metrics Similar Articles Request Permission Related Search Citation Alert By Google Scholar Comment On This Article

Abstract

Heavy metal (HM)-contaminated soils impose severe stress on the environment, yet certain soil microbes exhibit remarkable tolerance, revealing adaptive mechanisms in stress-adapted communities. Micro-eukaryotic communities in such environments exhibit substantial transcriptional reprogramming to mitigate stress-induced cellular damage. This study explores the molecular basis of HM stress adaptation based on transcript-level evidence using RNA-Seq-based metatranscriptomics combined with comprehensive in silico characterization. Exp_525919, a highly expressed transcript, was annotated against the UniProt proteome database using BLAST and was predicted as an uncharacterized protein from Achlya hypogyna (ACHHYP_04605), showing 57% sequence identity and a significant e-value (7.6e-24). Integrative analyses, including functional annotation, structural modeling, domain architecture, and evolutionary conservation, suggest that Exp_525919 is a putative DnaJ/heat shock protein 40 (HSP40)-domain-containing fragment, potentially associated with cellular protein quality control processes under HM stress conditions. Secondary structure revealed a predominance of coil regions with interspersed β-strands and a central α-helix. GO annotation predicted potential associations with transport, nucleic acid binding, and ribosomal association. Structural modeling generated a high-confidence model (96% coverage, 99.5% confidence), consistent with predicted chaperone-like proteins. Protein–protein interaction analysis revealed that the predicted uncharacterized protein ACHHYP_04605 is closely associated with major molecular chaperones, including HSP70, DnaJ/HSP40, and HSP90, suggesting its involvement in HSP70-centered stress-responsive networks. Network clustering revealed a molecular chaperone architecture in which core protein folding components were identified as central network hubs potentially associated with stress-adaptive responses. Overall, RNA-Seq-based metatranscriptomic analysis identified transcriptionally responsive potential genes and pathways underlying HM tolerance in micro-eukaryotic communities and provided a robust computational foundation for future experimental validation.

Keyword: RNA-Seq soil metatranscriptome heavy metal in silico characterization heat shock proteins molecular chaperones

Citation:

Sharma P, Singh Yadav BN, Maurya S, Yadav RK. In silico characterization of a metatranscriptome-derived stress-responsive putative DnaJ/HSP40-domain-containing fragment associated with heavy metal homeostasis. J Appl Biol Biotech 2026. Article in Press. http://doi.org/10.7324/jabb.2026.311545

Copyright: Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.

HTML Full Text

Reference

1. Wuana RA, Okieimen FE. Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecol. 2011; 1–20; doi: https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/402647

2. Kokkinos E, Zouboulis A. Hydrometallurgical recovery of CR(III) from tannery waste: optimization and selectivity investigation. Water (Switzerland) 2020;12(3):1–10; doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030719

3. Bellion M, Courbot M, Jacob C, Guinet F, Blaudez D, Chalot M. Metal induction of a Paxillus involutus metallothionein and its heterologous expression in Hebeloma cylindrosporum. New Phytologist 2007;174(1):151–8; doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.01973.x

4. Ruotolo R, Marchini G, Ottonello S. Membrane transporters and protein traffic networks differentially affecting metal tolerance: a genomic phenotyping study in yeast. Genome Biol 2008;9(4): R67; doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2008-9-4-r67

5. Pócsi I. Toxic metal/metalloid tolerance in fungi: a biotechnology-oriented approach. In: Banfalvi, G. (ed.). Cellular effects of heavy metals. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, p 31, 2011; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0428-2_2

6. Cohen MD, Kargacin B, Klein CB, Costa M. Mechanisms of chromium carcinogenicity and toxicity. Crit Rev Toxicol 1993;23(3):255–81; doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/10408449309105012

7. Joutey NT, Sayel H, Bahafid W, Ghachtouli N El. Mechanisms of hexavalent chromium resistance and removal by microorganisms. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 2015;233:45–69; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10479-9_2

8. Yadav BNS, Sharma P, Maurya S, Yadav RK. Metagenomics and metatranscriptomics as potential driving forces for the exploration of diversity and functions of micro-eukaryotes in soil. 3 Biotech 2023;13(12): 423; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-023-03841-3

9. Oliverio AM, Geisen S, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Maestre FT, Turner BL, Fierer N. The global-scale distributions of soil protists and their contributions to belowground systems. Sci Adv 2020;6:eaax8787; doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax8787

10. Schloter M, Nannipieri P, Sørensen SJ, Van Elsas JD. Microbial indicators for soil quality. Biol Fertil Soils 2018;54(1):1–10; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-017-1248-3

11. Huang S, Lentendu G, Fujinuma J, Shiono T, Kubota Y, Mitchell EAD. Soil micro-eukaryotic diversity patterns along elevation gradient are best estimated by increasing the number of elevation steps rather than within elevation band replication. Microb Ecol 2023;86(4):2606–17; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-023-02259-x

12. Urich T, Lanzén A, Qi J, Huson DH, Schleper C, Schuster SC. Simultaneous assessment of soil microbial community structure and function through analysis of the meta-transcriptome. PLoS One 2008;3(6): e2527; doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002527

13. Stark R, Grzelak M, Hadfield J.RNA sequencing: the teenage years. Nat Rev Genet 2019;20(11):631–56; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0150-2

14. Mukherjee A, Reddy MS. Metatranscriptomics: an approach for retrieving novel eukaryotic genes from polluted and related environments. 3 Biotech 2020;10(2): 71; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-2057-1

15. Tang H, Xiang G, Xiao W, Yang Z, Zhao B. Microbial mediated remediation of heavy metals toxicity: mechanisms and future prospects. Front Plant Sci 2024;15:1420408; doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1420408

16. Walkley AJ, Black IA. Estimation of soil organic carbon by the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 1934;37:29–38.

17. Piper CS. Soil and plant analysis: a laboratory manual of methods for the examination of soils and the determination of the inorganic constituents of plants. 7^th ed. The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 1996.

18. Kitson RE, Mellon MG. Colorimetric determination of phosphorous as molybdivanadophosphoric acid. Ind Eng Chem Anal 1944;16:379–83; doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/i560130a017

19. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India, p 498, 1973.

20. USEPA. Method 3060A, Alkaline Digestion for Hexavalent Chromium. Tests Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods SW 846. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office (GPO); 1996.

21. Yu Z, Pei Y, Zhao S, Kakade A, Khan A, Sharma M, et al. Metatranscriptomic analysis reveals active microbes and genes responded to short-term Cr(VI) stress. Ecotoxicology 2021;30(8):1527–37; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-020-02290-5

22. Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data; 2017. Available from: https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/

23. Krueger F. Trim Galore: a wrapper around Cutadapt and FastQC to consistently apply adapter and quality trimming to FastQ files, with extra functionality for RRBS data. Babraham bioinformatics; 2019. Available from: https://github.com/FelixKrueger/TrimGalore

24. Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. MetaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomics assembler. Genome Res 2017;27(5):824– 34; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.213959.116

25. Schmieder R, Edwards R. Quality control and preprocessing of metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 2011;27(6):863–4; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr026

26. Fu L, Niu B, Zhu Z, Wu S, Li W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2012;28(23):3150–2; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts565

27. Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 2012;9(4):357–9; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1923

28. Anders S, Huber W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol 2010;11(10):R106; doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-10-r106

29. Zhu W, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M. Ab initio gene identification in metagenomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2010;38(12): e132; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq275

30. Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods 2015;12(1):59–60; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3176

31. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). ORFfinder: Open Reading Frame Finder. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/orffinder/

32. GenomeNet. MOTIF: searching protein sequence motifs. Available at: https://www.genome.jp/tools/motif/

33. Buchan DWA, Moffat L, Lau A, Kandathil SM, Jones DT. Deep learning for the PSIPRED protein analysis workbench. Nucleic Acids Res 2024;52(W1):W287–93; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae328

34. Powell HR, Islam SA, David A, Sternberg MJE. Phyre2.2: a community resource for template-based protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 2025;437(15):168960; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2025.168960

35. Bertoni D, Tsenkov M, Magana P, Nair S, Pidruchna I, Querino Lima Afonso M, et al. AlphaFold protein structure database 2025: a redesigned interface and updated structural coverage. Nucleic Acids Res 2026;54(1):D358–62; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaf1226

36. Blum M, Andreeva A, Florentino LC, Chuguransky SR, Grego T, Hobbs E, et al. InterPro: the protein sequence classification resource in 2025. Nucleic Acids Res 2025;53(D1):D444–56; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae1082

37. Tegenfeldt F, Kuznetsov D, Manni M, Berkeley M, Zdobnov EM, Kriventseva EV. OrthoDB and BUSCO update: annotation of orthologs with wider sampling of genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 2025;53(D1):D516–22; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae987

38. Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res 2003;13(11):2498– 504; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.1239303

39. Zha S, Yu A, Wang Z, Shi Q, Cheng X, Liu C, et al. Microbial strategies for effective hexavalent chromium removal: a comprehensive review. Chem Eng J 2024;489:151457; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.151457

40. Kumar V, Dwivedi SK. Hexavalent chromium reduction ability and bioremediation potential of Aspergillus flavus CR500 isolated from electroplating wastewater. Chemosphere 2019;237: 124567; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124567

41. Bennett RM, Cordero PRF, Bautista GS, Dedeles GR. Reduction of hexavalent chromium using fungi and bacteria isolated from contaminated soil and water samples. Chem Ecol 2013;29(4):320–8; doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540.2013.770478

42. Bahafid W, Tahri Joutey N, Sayel H, Ghachtouli N EL. Mechanism of hexavalent chromium detoxification using Cyberlindnera fabianii yeast isolated from contaminated site in Fez (Morocco). J Mater Environ Sci 2013;4(6):840–7.

43. Shakya M, Lo CC, Chain PSG. Advances and challenges in metatranscriptomic analysis. Front Genet 2019; 10:904; doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00904

44. Dotaniya ML, Meena VD, Rajendiran S, Coumar MV, Saha JK, Kundu S. Geo-accumulation indices of heavy metals in soil and groundwater of kanpur, India under long term irrigation of tannery effluent. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2017;98(5):706–11; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-016-1983-4

45. WHO. Permissible limits of heavy metals in soil and plants. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1996.

46. Yadav BNS, Sharma P, Maurya S, Yadav A, Tiwari N, Reddy MS, et al. Spatial and seasonal variations of active micro-eukaryotic community structure in heavy metal-contaminated soils. 3 Biotech 2026;16(1):6; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-025-04605-x

47. Szebesczyk A, S?owik J.Heat shock proteins and metal ions – Reaction or interaction?. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2023;21:3103– 8; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2023.05.024

48. Díaz-Pérez C, Cervantes C, Campos-García J, Julián-Sánchez A, Riveros-Rosas H. Phylogenetic analysis of the chromate ion transporter (CHR) superfamily. FEBS J 2007;274(23):6215–27; doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.06141.x

49. Wang X, Wang C, Sheng H, Wang Y, Zeng J, Kang H, et al. Transcriptome-wide identification and expression analyses of ABC transporters in dwarf polish wheat under metal stresses. Biol Plant 2017;61(2):293–304; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-016-0697-0

50. Gao Y, Yang F, Liu J, Xie W, Zhang L, Chen Z, et al. Genome-wide identification of metal tolerance protein genes in Populus trichocarpa and their roles in response to various heavy metal stresses. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21(5): 1680; doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21051680

51. Ferrari M, Cozza R, Marieschi M, Torelli A. Role of sulfate transporters in chromium tolerance in Scenedesmus acutus M. (Sphaeropleales). Plants 2022;11(2): 223; doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11020223

52. Smith AT, Smith KP, Rosenzweig AC. Diversity of the metal-transporting P1B-type ATPases. J Biol Inorganic Chem 2014;19(6):947–60; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00775-014-1129-2

53. Yu XZ, Lin YJ, Zhang Q. Metallothioneins enhance chromium detoxification through scavenging ROS and stimulating metal chelation in Oryza sativa. Chemosphere 2019;220:300–13; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.119

54. Mukherjee A, Yadav R, Marmeisse R, Fraissinet-Tachet L, Reddy MS. Heavy metal hypertolerant eukaryotic aldehyde dehydrogenase isolated from metal contaminated soil by metatranscriptomics approach. Biochimie 2019;160:183–92; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2019.03.010

55. Singh V, Singh N, Verma M, Kamal R, Tiwari R, Sanjay Chivate M, et al. Hexavalent-Chromium-Induced Oxidative Stress and the Protective Role of Antioxidants against Cellular Toxicity. Antioxidants 2022;11(12): 2375; doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11122375

56. Legatzki A, Grass G, Anton A, Rensing C, Nies DH. Interplay of the Czc system and two P-type ATPases in conferring metal resistance to Ralstonia metallidurans. J Bacteriol 2003;185(15):4354–61; doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.185.15.4354-4361.2003

57. Brace JL, Lester RL, Dickson RC, Rudin CM. SVF1 regulates cell survival by affecting sphingolipid metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 2007;175(1):65–76; doi: https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.064527

58. Yan L, Jin H, Raza A, Huang Y, Gu DP, Zou X. Natural resistance-associated macrophage proteins (NRAMPs) are involved in cadmium enrichment in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under cadmium stress. Plant Growth Regul 2024;102(3):619–32; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-023-01091-0

59. Yadav BNS, Sharma P, Maurya S, Yadav RK. Functional metatranscriptomics reveals a novel multi-metal tolerant gene of nramp-family, isolated from metal-contaminated soil. Appl Biol Res 2024;26(2):186–98; doi: https://doi.org/10.48165/abr.2024.26.01.22

60. Gu J, He Y, He C, Zhang Q, Huang Q, Bai S, et al. Advances in the structures, mechanisms and targeting of molecular chaperones. Sig Transduct Target Ther 2025;10:84; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-025-02166-2

61. Hartl FU, Hayer-Hartl M. Converging concepts of protein folding in vitro and in vivo. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2009;16:574–81; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1591

62. Frydman J.Folding of newly translated proteins in vivo: the role of molecular chaperones. Annu Rev Biochem 2001;70:603–47; doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.70.1.603

63. Wu J, Liu T, Rios Z, Mei Q, Lin X, Cao S. Heat Shock Proteins and Cancer. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2017;38(3):226–56; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2016.11.009

64. Lubkowska A, Pluta W, Stro?ska A, Lalko A. Role of Heat Shock Proteins (HSP70 and HSP90) in Viral Infection. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22(17):9366; doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22179366

65. Keller A. A review on heat shock proteins (HSP70 and HSP90) in protein folding and stress response. Int J Mol Biol Biochem 2025;7(1):57–62; doi: https://doi.org/10.33545/26646501.2025.v7.i1a.85

66. Vierling E. The Roles of Heat Shock Proteins in Plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 1991;42:579–620; doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.42.060191.003051

67. Mayer MP, Bukau B. Hsp70 chaperones: cellular functions and molecular mechanism. Cell Mol Life Sci 2005;62(6):670–84; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-004-4464-6

68. Sharma SS, Dietz KJ.The relationship between metal toxicity and cellular redox imbalance. Trends Plant Sci 2009;14(1):43–50; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2008.10.007

69. Ogura T, Wilkinson AJ.AAA+ superfamily ATPases: common structure—diverse function. Genes Cells 2001;6(7):575–97; doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2443.2001.00447.x

70. Hennessy F, Nicoll WS, Zimmermann R, Cheetham ME, Blatch GL. Not all J domains are created equal: implications for the specificity of Hsp40-Hsp70 interactions. Protein Sci 2005;14(7):1697–709; doi: https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.051406805

71. Kampinga HH, Craig EA. The HSP70 chaperone machinery: j proteins as drivers of functional specificity. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2010;11(8):579–92; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2941

72. Walsh P, Bursa? D, Law YC, Cyr D, Lithgow T. The J-protein family: modulating protein assembly, disassembly and translocation. EMBO Rep 2004;5(6):567–71; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400172

73. Pellecchia M, Szyperski T, Wall D, Georgopoulos C, Wüthrich K. NMR structure of the J-domain and the Gly/Phe-rich region of the Escherichia coli DnaJ chaperone. J Mol Biol 1996;260(2):236–50; doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1996.0395

74. Genevaux P, Schwager F, Georgopoulos C, Kelley WL. Scanning mutagenesis identifies amino acid residues essential for the in vivo activity of the Escherichia coli DnaJ (HSP40) J-domain. Genetics 2002;162(3):1045–53; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/162.3.1045

75. Szklarczyk D, Kirsch R, Koutrouli M, Nastou K, Mehryary F, Hachilif R, et al. The STRING database in 2023: protein–protein association networks and functional enrichment analyses for any sequenced genome of interest. Nucleic Acids Res 2023;51(D1):D638–46; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1000

76. Han JDJ, Bertin N, Hao T, Goldberg DS, Berriz GF, Zhang LV, et al. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein–protein interaction network. Nature 2004;430:88–93; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02555

77. Barabási AL, Oltvai ZN. Network biology: understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nat Rev Genet 2004;5:101–13; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1272

78. Taipale M, Jarosz DF, Lindquist S. HSP90 at the hub of protein homeostasis: emerging mechanistic insights. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2010;11(7):515–28; doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2918

79. Powers ET, Morimoto RI, Dillin A, Kelly JW, Balch WE. Biological and Chemical Approaches to Diseases of Proteostasis Deficiency. Annu Rev Biochem 2009;78:959–91; doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.052308.114844

80. Kim YE, Hipp MS, Bracher A, Hayer-Hartl M, Ulrich Hartl F. Molecular Chaperone Functions in Protein Folding and Proteostasis. Annu Rev Biochem 2013;82:323–55; doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060208-092442

81. Velasco-Carneros L, Bernardo-Seisdedos G, Maréchal JD, Millet O, Moro F, Muga A. Pseudophosphorylation of single residues of the J domain of DNAJA2 regulates the holding/folding balance of the Hsc70 system. Protein Sci 2024;33(8):e5105; doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.5105

82. Kandasamy G, Andréasson C. HSP70-HSP110 chaperones deliver ubiquitin-dependent and -independent substrates to the 26S proteasome for proteolysis in yeast. J Cell Sci 2018;131(6):jcs210948; doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.210948

83. Havalová H, Ondrovi?ová G, Keresztesová B, Bauer JA, Pevala V, Kutejová E, et al. Mitochondrial HSP70 chaperone system—the influence of post-translational modifications and involvement in human diseases. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:8077; doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22158077

84. Piva F. Gaining new insights on the HSP90 regulatory network. Bioinformation 2020;16:17–20; doi: https://doi.org/10.6026/97320630016017

Article Metrics

13 Views 4 Downloads 17 Total

Year

Month

Related Search

By author names

By article title