4.5 Article

Mycobacterium tuberculosis WhiB4 regulates oxidative stress response to modulate survival and dissemination in vivo

期刊

MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY
卷 85, 期 6, 页码 1148-1165

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2012.08165.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome-DBT India Alliance [WTA01/10/355]
  2. NIH [P30AI027767]
  3. NIH Office of AIDS Research (OAR) entitled Creative and Novel Ideas in HIV Research (CNIHR)
  4. NIAID [AI058131, AI076389]
  5. Department of Biotechnology (DBT) [DB01/11/413, DB01/10/363]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Host-generated oxidative stress is considered one of the main mechanisms constraining Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) growth. The redox-sensing mechanisms in Mtb are not completely understood. Here we show that WhiB4 responds to oxygen (O2) and nitric oxide (NO) via its 4Fe-4S cluster and controls the oxidative stress response in Mtb. The WhiB4 mutant (Mtb?whiB4) displayed an altered redox balance and a reduced membrane potential. Microarray analysis demonstrated that Mtb?whiB4 overexpresses the antioxidant systems including alkyl hydroperoxidase (ahpC-ahpD) and rubredoxins (rubA-rubB). DNA binding assays showed that WhiB4 [4Fe-4S] cluster is dispensable for DNA binding. However, oxidation of the apo-WhiB4 Cys thiols induced disulphide-linked oligomerization, DNA binding and transcriptional repression, whereas reduction reversed the effect. Furthermore, WhiB4 binds DNA with a preference for GC-rich sequences. Expression analysis showed that oxidative stress repressed whiB4 and induced antioxidants in Mtb, while their hyper-induction was observed in Mtb?whiB4. Mtb?whiB4 showed increased resistance to oxidative stress in vitro and enhanced survival inside the macrophages. Lastly, Mtb?whiB4 displayed hypervirulence in the lungs of guinea pigs, but showed a defect in dissemination to their spleen. These findings suggest that WhiB4 systematically calibrates the activation of oxidative stress response in Mtb to maintain redox balance, and to modulate virulence.

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

4.5
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