4.6 Article

Polyphyly of non-bioluminescent Vibrio fischeri sharing a lux-locus deletion

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 655-668

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02608.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF IOS [0841507]
  2. NIH [R01 RR12294]
  3. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation [ZF211]
  4. Broad Institute SPARC
  5. NIH Molecular Biosciences [5T32GM007215-35]
  6. NIH Microbes in Health and Disease through UW-Madison [2T32AI055397-07]
  7. Woods Hole Center for Oceans and Human Health (COHH)
  8. NSF Microbial Systems
  9. Directorate For Geosciences
  10. Division Of Ocean Sciences [0911031, GRANTS:13931157] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  11. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  12. Direct For Biological Sciences [0841507, GRANTS:14025565] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports the first description and molecular characterization of naturally occurring, non-bioluminescent strains of Vibrio fischeri. These 'dark' V. fischeri strains remained non-bioluminescent even after treatment with both autoinducer and aldehyde, substrate additions that typically maximize light production in dim strains of luminous bacteria. Surprisingly, the entire lux locus (eight genes) was absent in over 97% of these dark V. fischeri strains. Although these strains were all collected from a Massachusetts (USA) estuary in 2007, phylogenetic reconstructions allowed us to reject the hypothesis that these newly described non-bioluminescent strains exhibit monophyly within the V. fischeri clade. These dark strains exhibited a competitive disadvantage against native bioluminescent strains when colonizing the light organ of the model V. fischeri host, the Hawaiian bobtail squid Euprymna scolopes. Significantly, we believe that the data collected in this study may suggest the first observation of a functional, parallel locus-deletion event among independent lineages of a non-pathogenic bacterial species.

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