4.4 Article

Directed Screen of Francisella novicida Virulence Determinants Using Drosophila melanogaster

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 78, 期 7, 页码 3118-3128

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00146-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [70285201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Francisella tularensis is a highly virulent, facultative intracellular human pathogen whose virulence mechanisms are not well understood. Occasional outbreaks of tularemia and the potential use of F. tularensis as a bioterrorist agent warrant better knowledge about the pathogenicity of this bacterium. Thus far, genome-wide in vivo screens for virulence factors have been performed in mice, all however restricted by the necessity to apply competition-based, negative-selection assays. We wanted to individually evaluate putative virulence determinants suggested by such assays and performed directed screening of 249 F. novicida transposon insertion mutants by using survival of infected fruit flies as a measure of bacterial virulence. Some 20% of the genes tested were required for normal virulence in flies; most of these had not previously been investigated in detail in vitro or in vivo. We further characterized their involvement in bacterial proliferation and pathogenicity in flies and in mouse macrophages. Hierarchical cluster analysis of mutant phenotypes indicated a functional linkage between clustered genes. One cluster grouped all but four genes of the Francisella pathogenicity island and other loci required for intracellular survival. We also identified genes involved in adaptation to oxidative stress and genes which might induce host energy wasting. Several genes related to type IV pilus formation demonstrated hypervirulent mutant phenotypes. Collectively, the data demonstrate that the bacteria in part use similar virulence mechanisms in mammals as in Drosophila melanogaster but that a considerable proportion of the virulence factors active in mammals are dispensable for pathogenicity in the insect model.

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

4.4
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