4.3 Article

Escherichia coli mutants induced by multi-ion irradiation

期刊

JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH
卷 53, 期 6, 页码 854-859

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrs061

关键词

ion irradiation; multiple mutagenesis; stable mutants; whole genome sequences

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundations of China [90403010, 60963015]
  2. Distinguished Scientist Award of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
  3. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Natural Science Foundation [2009BS0102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild-type Escherichia coli K12 strain W3110 was irradiated by 10 keV nitrogen ions. Specifically, irradiation was performed six times by N+ ions, followed by the selection of lac constitutive mutants, and each time a stable S55 mutant was produced. By sequencing the whole genome, the fine map of S55 was completed. Compared with reference sequences, a total of eighteen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), two insertions and deletions (Indels), and nine structural variations (SVs) were found in the S55 genome. Among the 18 SNPs, 11 are transversional from A, T or C to G, accounting for 55.6% of point mutations. GCCA insertion occurs in the target gene lacI. Four SNPs, including three in rlpB and one in ygbN, are connected with cell envelope and transport. All nine structural variations of S55 are deletions and contain insertion sequence (IS) elements. Six deleted SVs contain disrupted ISs, nonfunctional pseudogenes, and one more 23 252 bp SV in the Rac prophage region. Overall, our results show that deletion bias observed in E. coli K12 genome evolution is generally related to the deletion of some nonfunctional regions. Furthermore, since ISs are unstable factors in a genome, the multi-ion irradiations that caused these deleted fragments in S55 turn out to be beneficial to genome stability, generating a wider mutational spectrum. Thus, it is possible that the mutation of these genes increases the ability of the E. coli genome to resist etch and damage caused by ion irradiation.

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

4.3
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