4.0 Article

Analysis of the Complete Genomes of Acholeplasma brassicae, A. palmae and A. laidlawii and Their Comparison to the Obligate Parasites from 'Candidatus Phytoplasma'

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000354322

关键词

Complete genomes; Acholeplasma palmae; Acholeplasma brassicae; Candidatus phytoplasma

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [KU 2679/2-1, BU 890/211]
  2. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) [56266384]
  3. Ministry of Education and Science (Republic of Serbia) [TR31043]
  4. Max Planck Society
  5. [COST-FA0807-STSM-180111-006678]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analysis of the completely determined genomes of the plant-derived Acholeplasma brassicae strain O502 and A. palmae strain J233 revealed that the circular chromosomes are 1,877,792 and 1,554,229 bp in size, have a G + C content of 36 and 29%, and encode 1,690 and 1,439 proteins, respectively. Comparative analysis of these sequences and previously published genomes of A. laidlawii strain PG-8, 'Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris' strains, 'Ca. P. australiense' and 'Ca. P. mali' show a limited shared basic genetic repertoire. The acholeplasma genomes are characterized by a low number of rearrangements, duplication and integration events. Exceptions are the unusual duplication of rRNA operons in A. brassicae and an independently introduced second gene for a single-stranded binding protein in both genera. In contrast to phytoplasmas, the acholeplasma genomes differ by encoding the cell division protein FtsZ, a wide variety of ABC transporters, the F0F1 ATP synthase, the Rnf-complex, SecG of the Sec -dependent secretion system, a richly equipped repertoire for carbohydrate metabolism, fatty acid, isoprenoid and partial amino acid metabolism. Conserved metabolic proteins encoded in phytoplasma genomes such as the malate dehydrogenase SfcA, several transporters and proteins involved in host-interaction, and virulence-associated effectors were not predicted for the acholeplasmas. (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.0
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