4.3 Article

Sporulation environment drives phenotypic variation in the pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus

Journal

G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/g3journal/jkab208

Keywords

sporulation; conidia; heterogenetity; flow cytometry

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation IDEAs grant [DGE-1545433]
  2. UGA Department of Plant Biology
  3. Franklin College of Arts Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aspergillus fumigatus causes over 300,000 life-threatening infections annually and is genetically identical dormant spores wind-dispersed in various environments, where they can germinate and cause disease in susceptible hosts. High-throughput single-cell analysis revealed that genetically identical individuals exhibit different germination phenotypes, the environment of spore production affects spore size and germination heterogeneity, and impacts the virulence in a Galleria mellonella host.
Aspergillus fumigatus causes more than 300,000 life-threatening infections annually and is widespread across varied environments with a single colony producing thousands of conidia, genetically identical dormant spores. Conidia are easily wind-dispersed to new environments where they can germinate and, if inhaled by susceptible hosts, cause disease. Using high-throughput single-cell analysis via flow cytometry we analyzed conidia produced and germinated in nine environmentally and medically relevant conditions (complete medium, minimal medium, high temperature, excess copper, excess iron, limited iron, excess salt, excess reactive oxygen species, and limited zinc). We found that germination phenotypes vary among genetically identical individuals, that the environment of spore production determines the size of spores and the degree of germination heterogeneity, and that the environment of spore production impacts virulence in a Galleria mellonella host.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available