4.4 Article

Identification and Characterization of a Gene Cluster Required for Proper Rod Shape, Cell Division, and Pathogenesis in Clostridium difficile

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 196, 期 12, 页码 2290-2300

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.00038-14

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [T32 AI07511]
  2. National Institutes of Health [GM-083975, AI-087834]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about cell division in Clostridium difficile, a strict anaerobe that causes serious diarrheal diseases in people whose normal intestinal microbiome has been perturbed by treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Here we identify and characterize a gene cluster encoding three cell division proteins found only in C. difficile and a small number of closely related bacteria. These proteins were named MldA, MldB, and MldC, for midcell localizing division proteins. MldA is predicted to be a membrane protein with coiled-coil domains and a peptidoglycan-binding SPOR domain. MldB and MldC are predicted to be cytoplasmic proteins; MldB has two predicted coiled-coil domains, but MldC lacks obvious conserved domains or sequence motifs. Mutants of mldA or mldB had morphological defects, including loss of rod shape (a curved cell phenotype) and inefficient separation of daughter cells (a chaining phenotype). Fusions of cyan fluorescent protein (CFP) to MldA, MldB, and MldC revealed that all three proteins localize sharply to the division site. This application of CFP was possible because we discovered that O-2-dependent fluorescent proteins produced anaerobically can acquire fluorescence after cells are fixed with cross-linkers to preserve native patterns of protein localization. Mutants lacking the Mld proteins are severely attenuated for pathogenesis in a hamster model of C. difficile infection. Because all three Mld proteins are essentially unique to C. difficile, they might be exploited as targets for antibiotics that combat C. difficile without disrupting the intestinal microbiome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据