4.6 Article

Differential Expression of Iron Acquisition Genes by Brucella melitensis and Brucella canis during Macrophage Infection

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031747

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Region V 'Great Lakes' RCE (National Institutes of Health [NIH] [1-U54-AI-057153]
  2. BARD [US-4378-11]
  3. NIH [1R01AI073558]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Brucella spp. cause chronic zoonotic disease often affecting individuals and animals in impoverished economic or public health conditions; however, these bacteria do not have obvious virulence factors. Restriction of iron availability to pathogens is an effective strategy of host defense. For brucellae, virulence depends on the ability to survive and replicate within the host cell where iron is an essential nutrient for the growth and survival of both mammalian and bacterial cells. Iron is a particularly scarce nutrient for bacteria with an intracellular lifestyle. Brucella melitensis and Brucella canis share similar to 99% of their genomes but differ in intracellular lifestyles. To identify differences, gene transcription of these two pathogens was examined during infection of murine macrophages and compared to broth grown bacteria. Transcriptome analysis of B. melitensis and B. canis revealed differences of genes involved in iron transport. Gene transcription of the TonB, enterobactin, and ferric anguibactin transport systems was increased in B. canis but not B. melitensis during infection of macrophages. The data suggest differences in iron requirements that may contribute to differences observed in the lifestyles of these closely related pathogens. The initial importance of iron for B. canis but not for B. melitensis helps elucidate differing intracellular survival strategies for two closely related bacteria and provides insight for controlling these pathogens.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available