4.8 Article

A widespread bacteriophage abortive infection system functions through a Type IV toxin-antitoxin mechanism

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 7, 页码 4590-4605

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1419

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Society of New Zealand
  2. University of Otago
  3. Otago Postgraduate Publishing Bursary
  4. Sandy Smith Memorial Scholarship
  5. BBSRC [BB/H002677/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/H002677/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial abortive infection (Abi) systems are `altruistic' cell death systems that are activated by phage infection and limit viral replication, thereby providing protection to the bacterial population. Here, we have used a novel approach of screening Abi systems as a tool to identify and characterize toxin-antitoxin (TA)-acting Abi systems. We show that AbiE systems are encoded by bicistronic operons and function via a non-interacting (Type IV) bacteriostatic TA mechanism. The abiE operon was negatively autoregulated by the antitoxin, AbiEi, a member of a widespread family of putative transcriptional regulators. AbiEi has an N-terminal winged-helix-turn-helix domain that is required for repression of abiE transcription, and an uncharacterized bi-functional C-terminal domain, which is necessary for transcriptional repression and sufficient for toxin neutralization. The cognate toxin, AbiEii, is a predicted nucleotidyltransferase (NTase) and member of the DNA polymerase beta family. AbiEii specifically bound GTP, and mutations in conserved NTase motifs (I-III) and a newly identified motif (IV), abolished GTP binding and subsequent toxicity. The AbiE systems can provide phage resistance and enable stabilization of mobile genetic elements, such as plasmids. Our study reveals molecular insights into the regulation and function of the wide-spread bi-functional AbiE Abi-TA systems and the biochemical properties of both toxin and antitoxin proteins.

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

4.8
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