4.4 Article

Development of Competence for Genetic Transformation of Streptococcus mutans in a Chemically Defined Medium

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 194, 期 15, 页码 3774-3780

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.00337-12

关键词

-

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Fellow of the Life Sciences Research Foundation
  2. NIH from the NIAID [AI091779]
  3. NSF [MCB1020863]
  4. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1020863] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Streptococcus mutans develops competence for genetic transformation in response to regulatory circuits that sense at least two peptide pheromones. One peptide, known as CSP, is sensed by a two-component signal transduction system through a membrane receptor, ComD. The other, derived from the primary translation product ComS, is thought to be sensed by an intracellular receptor, ComR, after uptake by oligopeptide permease. To allow study of this process in a medium that does not itself contain peptides, development of competence was examined in the chemically defined medium (CDM) described by van de Rijn and Kessler (Infect. Immun. 27:444, 1980). We confirmed a previous report that in this medium comS mutants of strain UA159 respond to a synthetic peptide comprising the seven C-terminal residues of ComS (ComS(11-17)) by increasing expression of the alternative sigma factor SigX, which in turn allows expression of competence effector genes. This response provided the basis for a bioassay for the ComS pheromone in the 100 to 1,000 nM range. It was further observed that comS(+) (but not comS mutant) cultures developed a high level of competence in the late log and transition phases of growth in this CDM without the introduction of any synthetic stimulatory peptide. This endogenous competence development was accompanied by extracellular release of one or more signals that complemented a comS mutation at levels equivalent to 1 mu M synthetic ComS(11-17).

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