4.5 Article

Genetically distinct pathways guide effector export through the type VI secretion system

期刊

MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 529-542

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mmi.12571

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI080609, GM078634, GM102318]
  2. University of Maryland Baltimore, School of Pharmacy Mass Spectrometry Center [SOP1841-IQB2014]
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  4. National Science Foundation [DGE-0718124]
  5. Mary Gates Research Scholarship
  6. Burroughs Wellcome Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial secretion systems often employ molecular chaperones to recognize and facilitate export of their substrates. Recent work demonstrated that a secreted component of the type VI secretion system (T6SS), haemolysin co-regulated protein (Hcp), binds directly to effectors, enhancing their stability in the bacterial cytoplasm. Herein, we describe a quantitative cellular proteomics screen for T6S substrates that exploits this chaperone-like quality of Hcp. Application of this approach to the Hcp secretion island I-encoded T6SS (H1-T6SS) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa led to the identification of a novel effector protein, termed Tse4 (type VI secretion exported 4), subsequently shown to act as a potent intra-specific H1-T6SS-delivered antibacterial toxin. Interestingly, our screen failed to identify two predicted H1-T6SS effectors, Tse5 and Tse6, which differ from Hcp-stabilized substrates by the presence of toxin-associated PAAR-repeat motifs and genetic linkage to members of the valine-glycine repeat protein G (vgrG) genes. Genetic studies further distinguished these two groups of effectors: Hcp-stabilized effectors were found to display redundancy in interbacterial competition with respect to the requirement for the two H1-T6SS-exported VgrG proteins, whereas Tse5 and Tse6 delivery strictly required a cognate VgrG. Together, we propose that interaction with either VgrG or Hcp defines distinct pathways for T6S effector export.

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