4.6 Article

Population structure in the Neisseria, and the biological significance of fuzzy species

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE
卷 9, 期 71, 页码 1208-1215

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2011.0601

关键词

fuzzy species; recombination; Neisseria

资金

  1. Trust and European Union
  2. Livanos Trust
  3. Health Protection Agency, UK
  4. ERC [239784]
  5. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  6. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [U54GMO88558]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phenotypic and genetic variation in bacteria can take bewilderingly complex forms even within a single genus. One of the most intriguing examples of this is the genus Neisseria, which comprises both pathogens and commensals colonizing a variety of body sites and host species, and causing a range of disease. Complex relatedness among both named species and previously identified lineages of Neisseria makes it challenging to study their evolution. Using the largest publicly available collection of bacterial sequence data in combination with a population genetic analysis and experiment, we probe the contribution of inter-species recombination to neisserial population structure, and specifically whether it is more common in some strains than others. We identify hybrid groups of strains containing sequences typical of more than one species. These groups of strains, typical of a fuzzy species, appear to have experienced elevated rates of inter-species recombination estimated by population genetic analysis and further supported by transformation experiments. In particular, strains of the pathogen Neisseria meningitidis in the fuzzy species boundary appear to follow a different lifestyle, which may have considerable biological implications concerning distribution of novel resistance elements and meningococcal vaccine development. Despite the strong evidence for negligible geographical barriers to gene flow within the population, exchange of genetic material still shows directionality among named species in a non-uniform manner.

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

4.6
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