4.6 Article

Differential Expression of Virulence and Stress Fitness Genes between Escherichia coli O157:H7 Strains with Clinical or Bovine-Biased Genotypes

Journal

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 1, Pages 60-68

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01666-09

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [N01AI030055] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Escherichia coli O157:H7 strains can be classified into different genotypes based on the presence of specific Shiga toxin-encoding bacteriophage insertion sites. Certain O157: H7 genotypes predominate among human clinical cases (clinical genotypes), while others are more frequently found in bovines (bovine-biased genotypes). To determine whether inherent differences in gene expression explain the variation in infectivity of these genotypes, we compared the expression patterns of clinical genotype 1 strains with those of bovine-biased genotype 5 strains using microarrays. Important O157: H7 virulence factors, including locus of enterocyte effacement genes, the enterohemolysin, and several pO157 genes, showed increased expression in the clinical versus bovine-biased genotypes. In contrast, genes essential for acid resistance (e. g., gadA, gadB, and gadC) and stress fitness were upregulated in bovine-biased genotype 5 strains. Increased expression of acid resistance genes was confirmed functionally using a model stomach assay, in which strains of bovine-biased genotype 5 had a 2-fold-higher survival rate than strains of clinical genotype 1. Overall, these results suggest that the increased prevalence of O157: H7 illness caused by clinical genotype 1 strains is due in part to the overexpression of key virulence genes. The bovine-biased genotype 5 strains, however, are more resistant to adverse environmental conditions, a characteristic that likely facilitates O157: H7 colonization of bovines.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available