4.6 Article

Comparison of O-Antigen Gene Clusters of All O-Serogroups of Escherichia coli and Proposal for Adopting a New Nomenclature for O-Typing

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147434

关键词

-

资金

  1. Thermo Fisher Scientific

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Escherichia coli strains are classified based on O-antigens that are components of the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in the cell envelope. O-antigens are important virulence factors, targets of both the innate and adaptive immune system, and play a role in host-pathogen interactions. Because they are highly immunogenic and display antigenic specificity unique for each strain, O-antigens are the biomarkers for designating O-types. Immunologically, 185 O-serogroups and 11 OX-groups exist for classification. Conventional serotyping for O-typing entails agglutination reactions between the O-antigen and antisera generated against each O-group. The procedure is labor intensive, not always accurate, and exhibits equivocal results. In this report, we present the sequences of 71 O-antigen gene clusters (O-AGC) and a comparison of all 196 O- and OX-groups. Many of the designated O-types, applied for classification over several decades, exhibited similar nucleotide sequences of the O-AGCs and cross-reacted serologically. Some O-AGCs carried insertion sequences and others had only a few nucleotide differences between them. Thus, based on these findings, it is proposed that several of the E. coli O-groups may be merged. Knowledge of the O-AGC sequences facilitates the development of molecular diagnostic platforms that are rapid, accurate, and reliable that can replace conventional serotyping. Additionally, with the scientific knowledge presented, new frontiers in the discovery of biomarkers, understanding the roles of O-antigens in the innate and adaptive immune system and pathogenesis, the development of glycoconjugate vaccines, and other investigations, can be explored.

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