4.6 Article

Development of Shuttle Vectors for Transformation of Diverse Rickettsia Species

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029511

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 AI49424, R01 AI081690]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plasmids have been identified in most species of Rickettsia examined, with some species maintaining multiple different plasmids. Three distinct plasmids were demonstrated in Rickettsia amblyommii AaR/SC by Southern analysis using plasmid specific probes. Copy numbers of pRAM18, pRAM23 and pRAM32 per chromosome in AaR/SC were estimated by real-time PCR to be 2.0, 1.9 and 1.3 respectively. Cloning and sequencing of R. amblyommii AaR/SC plasmids provided an opportunity to develop shuttle vectors for transformation of rickettsiae. A selection cassette encoding rifampin resistance and a fluorescent marker was inserted into pRAM18 yielding a 27.6 kbp recombinant plasmid, pRAM18/Rif/GFPuv. Electroporation of Rickettsia parkeri and Rickettsia bellii with pRAM18/Rif/GFPuv yielded GFPuv-expressing rickettsiae within 2 weeks. Smaller vectors, pRAM18dRG, pRAM18dRGA and pRAM32dRGA each bearing the same selection cassette, were made by moving the parA and dnaA-like genes from pRAM18 or pRAM32 into a vector backbone. R. bellii maintained the highest numbers of pRAM18dRGA (13.3 - 28.1 copies), and R. parkeri, Rickettsia monacensis and Rickettsia montanensis contained 9.9, 5.5 and 7.5 copies respectively. The same species transformed with pRAM32dRGA maintained 2.6, 2.5, 3.2 and 3.6 copies. pRM, the plasmid native to R. monacensis, was still present in shuttle vector transformed R. monacensis at a level similar to that found in wild type R. monacensis after 15 subcultures. Stable transformation of diverse rickettsiae was achieved with a shuttle vector system based on R. amblyommii plasmids pRAM18 and pRAM32, providing a new research tool that will greatly facilitate genetic and biological studies of rickettsiae.

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