4.4 Article

Characterization of Novel Phages Isolated in Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Reveals Evolutionary Relationships with Staphylococcus aureus Phages

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 194, 期 21, 页码 5829-5839

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.01085-12

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Space Agency [ESA AO-2004: Prodex C90255]
  2. Fonds Jean Brachet
  3. Van Buuren Foundation
  4. Institut Pasteur
  5. CNRS
  6. CIBLES program of the Walloon Region
  7. Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS)
  8. European Regional Development Fund
  9. Walloon Region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite increasing interest in coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), little information is available about their bacteriophages. We isolated and sequenced three novel temperate Siphoviridae phages (StB12, StB27, and StB20) from the CoNS Staphylococcus hominis and S. capitis species. The genome sizes are around 40 kb, and open reading frames (ORFs) are arranged in functional modules encoding lysogeny, DNA metabolism, morphology, and cell lysis. Bioinformatics analysis allowed us to assign a potential function to half of the predicted proteins. Structural elements were further identified by proteomic analysis of phage particles, and DNA-packaging mechanisms were determined. Interestingly, the three phages show identical integration sites within their host genomes. In addition to this experimental characterization, we propose a novel classification based on the analysis of 85 phage and prophage genomes, including 15 originating from CoNS. Our analysis established 9 distinct clusters and revealed close relationships between S. aureus and CoNS phages. Genes involved in DNA metabolism and lysis and potentially in phage-host interaction appear to be widespread, while structural genes tend to be cluster specific. Our findings support the notion of a possible reciprocal exchange of genes between phages originating from S. aureus and CoNS, which may be of crucial importance for pathogenesis in staphylococci.

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