4.8 Article

Disease-associated genotypes of the commensal skin bacterium Staphylococcus epidermidis

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07368-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (MRC) [MR/L015080/1, MR/M501608/1, G0801929]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/I02464X/1]
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. Health Research Fellowship - National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (NISCHR) [HF-14-13]
  5. JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists
  6. ERC [742158]
  7. Damp-Stiftung
  8. BBSRC [BB/I02464X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. MRC [MR/R015600/1, MR/L015080/1, G0801929] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some of the most common infectious diseases are caused by bacteria that naturally colonise humans asymptomatically. Combating these opportunistic pathogens requires an understanding of the traits that differentiate infecting strains from harmless relatives. Staphylococcus epidermidis is carried asymptomatically on the skin and mucous membranes of virtually all humans but is a major cause of nosocomial infection associated with invasive procedures. Here we address the underlying evolutionary mechanisms of opportunistic pathogenicity by combining pangenome-wide association studies and laboratory microbiology to compare S. epidermidis from bloodstream and wound infections and asymptomatic carriage. We identify 61 genes containing infection-associated genetic elements (k-mers) that correlate with in vitro variation in known pathogenicity traits (biofilm formation, cell toxicity, interleukin-8 production, methicillin resistance). Horizontal gene transfer spreads these elements, allowing divergent clones to cause infection. Finally, Random Forest model prediction of disease status (carriage vs. infection) identifies pathogenicity elements in 415 S. epidermidis isolates with 80% accuracy, demonstrating the potential for identifying risk genotypes pre-operatively.

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

4.8
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