4.4 Article

Identification of the cglC, cglD, cglE, and cglF Genes and Their Role in Cell Contact-Dependent Gliding Motility in Myxococcus xanthus

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 194, 期 8, 页码 1940-1949

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.00055-12

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [MCB-0848141]
  2. University of Wyoming
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [0848141] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Within Myxococcus xanthus biofilms, cells actively move and exchange their outer membrane (OM) lipoproteins and lipids. Between genetically distinct strains, OM exchange can regulate recipient cell behaviors, including gliding motility and development. Although many different proteins are thought to be exchanged, to date, only two endogenous OM lipoproteins, CglB and Tgl, are known to be transferred. Protein exchange requires the TraAB proteins in recipient and donor cells, where they are hypothesized to facilitate OM fusion for transfer. To better understand the types of proteins exchanged, we identified the genes for the remaining set of cgl gliding motility mutants. These mutants are unique because their motility defect can be transiently restored by physical contact with donor cells that encode the corresponding wild-type protein, a process called stimulation. Similar to CglB and Tgl, the cglC and cglD genes encode type II signal sequences, suggesting that they are also lipoproteins. Surprisingly, the cglE and cglF genes instead encode type I signal sequences, suggesting that nonlipoproteins are also exchanged. Consistent with this idea, the addition of exogenous synthetic CglF protein (71 amino acids) to a cglF mutant rescued its motility defect. In contrast to a live donor cell, stimulation with purified CglF protein occurred independently of TraA. These results also indicate that CglF may localize to the cell surface. The implications of our findings on OM exchange are discussed.

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