4.6 Article

Comparative Analysis of Plasmids in the Genus Listeria

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012511

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Ministry of Education and Research
  2. sncRNAomics
  3. SPATELIS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We sequenced four plasmids of the genus Listeria, including two novel plasmids from L. monocytogenes serotype 1/2c and 7 strains as well as one from the species L. grayi. A comparative analysis in conjunction with 10 published Listeria plasmids revealed a common evolutionary background. Principal Findings: All analysed plasmids share a common replicon-type related to theta-replicating plasmid pAMbeta1. Nonetheless plasmids could be broadly divided into two distinct groups based on replicon diversity and the genetic content of the respective plasmid groups. Listeria plasmids are characterized by the presence of a large number of diverse mobile genetic elements and a commonly occurring translesion DNA polymerase both of which have probably contributed to the evolution of these plasmids. We detected small non-coding RNAs on some plasmids that were homologous to those present on the chromosome of L. monocytogenes EGD-e. Multiple genes involved in heavy metal resistance (cadmium, copper, arsenite) as well as multidrug efflux (MDR, SMR, MATE) were detected on all listerial plasmids. These factors promote bacterial growth and survival in the environment and may have been acquired as a result of selective pressure due to the use of disinfectants in food processing environments. MDR efflux pumps have also recently been shown to promote transport of cyclic diadenosine monophosphate (c-di-AMP) as a secreted molecule able to trigger a cytosolic host immune response following infection. Conclusions: The comparative analysis of 14 plasmids of genus Listeria implied the existence of a common ancestor. Ubiquitously-occurring MDR genes on plasmids and their role in listerial infection now deserve further attention.

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