4.7 Review

The versatility and adaptation of bacteria from the genus Stenotrophomonas

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 514-525

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2163

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  2. Austrian Science Foundation FWF
  3. INTAS project [04-82-6969]
  4. US Department of Energy, Office of Science, BER [KP1102010, DE-AC02-98CH10886]
  5. Laboratory Directed Research and Development funds [LDRD05-063, LDRD09-005]
  6. Royalty Funds
  7. Wellcome Trust
  8. British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
  9. Science Foundation of Ireland [SFI 03/IN3/B373, 07/IN.1/B955]
  10. Department of Energy's Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program
  11. University of California
  12. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  13. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  14. Los Alamos National Laboratory [DE-AC02-06NA25396]
  15. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [07/IN.1/B955] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)
  16. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 20542] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genus Stenotrophomonas comprises at least eight species. These bacteria are found throughout the environment, particularly in close association with plants. Strains of the most predominant species, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, have an extraordinary range of activities that include beneficial effects for plant growth and health, the breakdown of natural and man-made pollutants that are central to bioremediation and phytoremediation strategies and the production of biomolecules of economic value, as well as detrimental effects, such as multidrug resistance, in human pathogenic strains. Here, we discuss the versatility of the bacteria in the genus Stenotrophomonas and the insight that comparative genomic analysis of clinical and endophytic isolates of S. maltophilia has brought to our understanding of the adaptation of this genus to various niches.

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

4.7
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