4.8 Article

An in vivo expression technology screen for Vibrio cholerae genes expressed in human volunteers

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0705636104

Keywords

gene expression; genetics; vaccinology; virulence

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR-16500, M01 RR016500] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI055058, T32 AI007524, R01 AI019716, N01-AI 65299, T32 AI07524, R01-AI19716, N01AI65299, R01-AI55058] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [T32 DK067872] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

in vivo expression technology (IVET) has been widely used to study gene expression of human bacterial pathogens in animal models, but has heretofore not been used in humans to our knowledge. As part of ongoing efforts to understand Vibrio cholerae pathogenesis and develop improved V. cholerae vaccines, we have performed an IVET screen in humans for genes that are preferentially expressed by V. cholerae during infection. A library of 8,734 nontoxigenic V. cholerae strains carrying transcriptional fusions of genomic DNA to a resolvase gene was ingested by five healthy adult volunteers. Transcription of the fusion leads to resolvase-dependent excision of a sacB-containing cassette and thus the selectable phenotype of sucrose resistance (SUCR). A total of approximate to 20,000 SUCR isolates, those carrying putative in vivo-induced fusions, were recovered from volunteer stool samples. Analysis of the fusion junctions from >7,000 Suc(R) isolates from multiple samples from multiple volunteers identified 217 candidate genes for preferential expression during human infection. Of genes or operons induced in three or more volunteers, the majority of those tested (65%) were induced in an infant mouse model. VC0201 (fhuC), which encodes the ATPase of a ferrichrome ABC transporter, is one of the identified in vivo-induced genes and is required for virulence in the mouse model.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available