4.5 Article

Comparative Analysis of the Core Proteomes among thePseudomonasMajor Evolutionary Groups Reveals Species-Specific Adaptations forPseudomonas aeruginosaandPseudomonas chlororaphis

Journal

DIVERSITY-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/d12080289

Keywords

Pseudomonas; core-proteome; phylogenomics; comparative genomics; species-specific adaptations

Funding

  1. Bodossakis foundation [BDA-394]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ThePseudomonasgenus includes many species living in diverse environments and hosts. It is important to understand which are the major evolutionary groups and what are the genomic/proteomic components they have in common or are unique. Towards this goal, we analyzed 494 completePseudomonasproteomes and identified 297 core-orthologues. The subsequent phylogenomic analysis revealed two well-defined species (Pseudomonas aeruginosaandPseudomonas chlororaphis) and four wider phylogenetic groups (Pseudomonas fluorescens,Pseudomonas stutzeri,Pseudomonas syringae,Pseudomonas putida) with a sufficient number of proteomes. As expected, the genus-level core proteome was highly enriched for proteins involved in metabolism, translation, and transcription. In addition, between 39-70% of the core proteins in each group had a significant presence in each of all the other groups. Group-specific core proteins were also identified, withP. aeruginosahaving the highest number of these andP. fluorescenshaving none. We identified severalP. aeruginosa-specific core proteins (such asCntL,CntM,PlcB,Acp1,MucE,SrfA,Tse1,Tsi2,Tse3, andEsrC) that are known to play an important role in its pathogenicity. Finally, a holin family bacteriocin and a mitomycin-like biosynthetic protein were found to be core-specific forP. cholororaphisand we hypothesize that these proteins may confer a competitive advantage against other root-colonizers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available