4.6 Article

In Vitro Analysis of Predicted DNA-Binding Sites for the Stl Repressor of the Staphylococcus aureus SaPIBov1 Pathogenicity Island

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158793

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Research and Innovation (NKFIH) [OTKA NK 84008, OTKA K109486]
  2. Baross program of the New Hungary Development Plan [OMFB-00266/2010 REG-KM-09-1- 2009-0050, 3DSTRUCT]
  3. Hungarian Academy of Sciences [TTK IF-28/ 2012]
  4. MedinProt program of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  5. European Commission FP7 BioStruct-X project [283570]
  6. ICGEB Research Grant [CRP/HUN14-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The regulation model of the Staphylococcus aureus pathogenicity island SaPIbov1 transfer was recently reported. The repressor protein Stl obstructs the expression of SaPI proteins Str and Xis, latter which is responsible for mobilization initiation. Upon Phi 11 phage infection of S. aureus. phage dUTPase activates the SaPI transfer via Stl-dUTPase complex formation. Our aim was to predict the binding sites for the Stl repressor within the S. aureus pathogenicity island DNA sequence. We found that Stl was capable to bind to three 23-mer oligonucleotides, two of those constituting sequence segments in the stl-str, while the other corresponding to sequence segment within the str-xis intergenic region. Within these oligonucleotides, mutational analysis revealed that the predicted binding site for the Stl protein exists as a palindromic segment in both intergenic locations. The palindromes are built as 6-mer repeat sequences involved in Stl binding. The 6-mer repeats are separated by a 5 oligonucleotides long, nonspecific sequence. Future examination of the interaction between Stl and its binding sites in vivo will provide a molecular explanation for the mechanisms of gene repression and gene activation exerted simultaneously by the Stl protein in regulating transfer of the SaPIbov1 pathogenicity island in S. aureus.

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

4.6
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