4.5 Article

Differential efficiency of induction of various lambdoid prophages responsible for production of Shiga toxins in response to different induction agents

期刊

MICROBIAL PATHOGENESIS
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 289-298

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2009.09.006

关键词

Lambdoid bacteriophages; Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC); Prophage induction; Bacteriophage replication; Extrachromosomal genetic elements

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [N 301 122 31/3747]
  2. European Union [POIG.01.01.02-00-008/08]
  3. Polish Science and Foundation for Development of University of Gdansk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is a group of pathogenic strains responsible for bloody diarrhea and hemorrhagic colitis, with often severe complications. Shiga toxins are the main factors causing the phathogenicity of STEC. Production of these toxins depends on the presence of stx1 and stx2 genes, which are located on lambdoid prophages, and their expression is stimulated upon prophage induction. Therefore, a transition of the phage genome from the prophage state to an extrachromosomal genetic element, and its further propagation, is crucial for the pathogenic effects. However, our knowledge on specific conditions for induction of these prophages in bacteria occurring in human intestine is very limited. In this report we present results of our studies on five different phages, originally occurring in STEC strains, in comparison to bacteriophage lambda. We found that efficiencies of induction of prophages and their further development vary considerably in response to different induction agents. Moreover, efficiency of progeny phage production might be modulated by other factors, like temperature or bacterial growth rate. Therefore, it is likely that pathogenicity of different STEC strains may be significantly different under specific conditions in their natural habitats. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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