4.6 Article

Predicting Essential Metabolic Genome Content of Niche-Specific Enterobacterial Human Pathogens during Simulation of Host Environments

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149423

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
  2. College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
  3. Global Food Ventures Graduate Student Fellowship from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
  4. Schlumberger Faculty for the Future Graduate Student Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microorganisms have evolved to occupy certain environmental niches, and the metabolic genes essential for growth in these locations are retained in the genomes. Many microorganisms inhabit niches located in the human body, sometimes causing disease, and may retain genes essential for growth in locations such as the bloodstream and urinary tract, or growth during intracellular invasion of the hosts' macrophage cells. Strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Salmonella spp. are thought to have evolved over 100 million years from a common ancestor, and now cause disease in specific niches within humans. Here we have used a genome scale metabolic model representing the pangenome of E. coli which contains all metabolic reactions encoded by genes from 16 E. coli genomes, and have simulated environmental conditions found in the human bloodstream, urinary tract, and macrophage to determine essential metabolic genes needed for growth in each location. We compared the predicted essential genes for three E. coli strains and one Salmonella strain that cause disease in each host environment, and determined that essential gene retention could be accurately predicted using this approach. This project demonstrated that simulating human body environments such as the bloodstream can successfully lead to accurate computational predictions of essential/important genes.

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