4.8 Article

Bacteria elicit a phage tolerance response subsequent to infection of their neighbors

期刊

EMBO JOURNAL
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/embj.2021109247

关键词

Bacillus subtilis; bacteriophage; cell wall teichoic acid; dlt operon; plaque formation

资金

  1. NSF/BSF-United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation [2017672]
  2. ERC Synergy grant [810186]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [810186] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When bacteria sense infection of their neighbors, a temporary phage tolerance response is triggered, which is primarily executed by the stress-response RNA polymerase sigma factor sigma(X) (SigX). This response activates the dlt operon, encoding enzymes that hinder phage binding and infection, allowing uninfected bacteria to form a protective shield against phage spread.
Appearance of plaques on a bacterial lawn is a sign of successive rounds of bacteriophage infection. Yet, mechanisms evolved by bacteria to limit plaque spread have been hardly explored. Here, we investigated the dynamics of plaque development by lytic phages infecting the bacterium Bacillus subtilis. We report that plaque expansion is followed by a constriction phase owing to bacterial growth into the plaque zone. This phenomenon exposed an adaptive process, herein termed phage tolerance response, elicited by non-infected bacteria upon sensing infection of their neighbors. The temporary phage tolerance is executed by the stress-response RNA polymerase sigma factor sigma(X) (SigX). Artificial expression of SigX prior to phage attack largely eliminates infection. SigX tolerance is primarily conferred by activation of the dlt operon, encoding enzymes that catalyze D-alanylation of cell wall teichoic acid polymers, the major attachment sites for phages infecting Gram-positive bacteria. D-alanylation impedes phage binding and hence infection, thus enabling the uninfected bacteria to form a protective shield opposing phage spread.

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