4.6 Article

Comparative genomics of Burkholderia multivorans, a ubiquitous pathogen with a highly conserved genomic structure

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176191

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM110444] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The natural environment serves as a reservoir of opportunistic pathogens. A well-established method for studying the epidemiology of such opportunists is multilocus sequence typing, which in many cases has defined strains predisposed to causing infection. Burkholderia multivorans is an important pathogen in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) and its epidemiology suggests that strains are acquired from non-human sources such as the natural environment. This raises the central question of whether the isolation source (CF or environment) or the multilocus sequence type (ST) of B. multivorans better predicts their genomic content and functionality. We identified four pairs of B. multivorans isolates, representing distinct STs and consisting of one CF and one environmental isolate each. All genomes were sequenced using the PacBio SMRT sequencing technology, which resulted in eight high-quality B. multivorans genome assemblies. The present study demonstrated that the genomic structure of the examined B. multivorans STs is highly conserved and that the B. multivorans genomic lineages are defined by their ST. Orthologous protein families were not uniformly distributed among chromosomes, with core orthologs being enriched on the primary chromosome and ST-specific orthologs being enriched on the second and third chromosome. The ST-specific orthologs were enriched in genes involved in defense mechanisms and secondary metabolism, corroborating the strain-specificity of these virulence characteristics. Finally, the same B. multivorans genomic lineages occur in both CF and environmental samples and on different continents, demonstrating their ubiquity and evolutionary persistence.

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