4.3 Article

16S-23S rDNA internal transcribed spacer regions in four Proteus species

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 109-118

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2009.01.024

关键词

Proteus; ITS; Internal transcribed spacer

资金

  1. National High Technology Research
  2. Development Program of China (863 Program) [2006BAK02A14, 2006AA06Z409, 2006AA020703]
  3. Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Committee [07JCYBJC08500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proteus is a Gram-negative, facultative anaerobic bacterium. In this study, 813 Proteus 165-235 rDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences were determined from 46 Proteus strains, including 388 ITS from 22 P. mirabilis strains, 211 ITS from 12 P vulgaris strains, 169 ITS from 10 P. penneri strains, and 45 ITS from 2 P. myxofaciens strains. The Proteus strains carry mainly two types of ITS, ITSGlu (containing tRNAC(Glu) ((UUC)) gene) and ITSIIe+(Ala) (containing tRNA(IIe) ((GAU)) and tRNA(Ala) ((UGC)) gene), and are in the forms of 28 variants with 25 genomic origins. The ITS sequences are a mosaic-like structure consisting of three conservative regions and two variable regions. The nucleotide identity of ITS subtypes in strains of the same species ranges from 96.2% to 100%. The divergence of Proteus ITS divergence was most likely due to intraspecies recombinations or horizontal transfers of sequence blocks. The phylogenetic relationship deduced from the second variable region of ITS sequences of the three facultative human pathogenic species P. mirabilis, P. vulgaris and P. penneri is similar with that based on 165 rDNA sequences, but has higher resolution to differentiate closely related P. vulgaris and P. penneri. This study is the first comprehensive study of ITS in four Proteus species and laid solid foundation for the development of high-throughput technology for quick and accurate identification of the important foodborne and nosocomial pathogens. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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