4.6 Article

Comparative transcriptomics of pathogenic and non-pathogenic Listeria species

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/msb.2012.11

关键词

comparative genomics; Listeria monocytogenes; RNA-seq; transcriptome; TSS map

资金

  1. Pasteur-Weizmann program
  2. ERC [260432, 233348]
  3. ANR [Bacregrna 09-BLAN-0024-02]
  4. Fondation Le Roch Les Mousquetaires
  5. Fondation Jeantet
  6. Azrieli fellowship
  7. INRA (Institute National de la recherche Agronomique)
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [260432] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Listeria monocytogenes is a human, food-borne pathogen. Genomic comparisons between L. monocytogenes and Listeria innocua, a closely related non-pathogenic species, were pivotal in the identification of protein-coding genes essential for virulence. However, no comprehensive comparison has focused on the non-coding genome. We used strand-specific cDNA sequencing to produce genome-wide transcription start site maps for both organisms, and developed a publicly available integrative browser to visualize and analyze both transcriptomes in different growth conditions and genetic backgrounds. Our data revealed conservation across most transcripts, but significant divergence between the species in a subset of non-coding RNAs. In L. monocytogenes, we identified 113 small RNAs (33 novel) and 70 antisense RNAs (53 novel), significantly increasing the repertoire of ncRNAs in this species. Remarkably, we identified a class of long antisense transcripts (lasRNAs) that overlap one gene while also serving as the 50 UTR of the adjacent divergent gene. Experimental evidence suggests that lasRNAs transcription inhibits expression of one operon while activating the expression of another. Such a lasRNA/operon structure, that we named 'excludon', might represent a novel form of regulation in bacteria. Molecular Systems Biology 8: 583; published online 22 May 2012; doi:10.1038/msb.2012.11

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