4.6 Article

Characterization of filamentous bacteriophage PE226 infecting Ralstonia solanacearum strains

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 110, 期 1, 页码 296-303

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04882.x

关键词

bacterial wilt; filamentous bacteriophage; Inovirus; Ralstonia solanacearum; zot

资金

  1. Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [20070301034035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The aim of this study was to isolate and characterize new bacteriophages that infect a wide range of plant pathogenic Ralstonia solanacearum strains. Methods and Results: Fifteen bacteriophages were isolated from pepper, tomato and tobacco plant rhizospheres infected with R. solanacearum. A host specificity analysis of the isolated phages using nine strains of R. solanacearum indicated great phage diversity in a single soil. Two phages, PE226 and TM227, showed clear plaques on all nine bacterial hosts tested and were virtually identical in morphology and genome. PE226, an Inovirus, is a long, flexible, filamentous phage carrying a circular (+) sense single-strand DNA genome of 5475 nucleotides. DNA sequences of PE226 exhibited nine open reading frames (ORF) that were not highly similar to those of other phages infecting R. solanacearum. The genome organization of PE226 was partially similar to that of p12J of Ralstonia pickettii. One ORF of PE226 showed identity to the zot gene encoding zonula occludens toxin of Vibrio cholera. Orf7 of PE226 was also present in the genome of R. solanacearum strain SL341. However, SL341, a highly virulent strain in tomato, was still sensitive to phage PE226. Conclusions: A new, flexible, filamentous phage PE226 infected wide range of R. solanacearum strains and carried unique circular single-strand DNA genome with an ORF encoding Zot-like protein. Significance and Impact of the Study: PE226 may be a new type of temperate phage, based on its lytic nature on a wide range of hosts and the presence of a zot homologue in a host bacterial genome.

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