4.7 Article

Genomic structure and insertion sites of Helicobacter pylori prophages from various geographical origins

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep42471

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [PTDC/EBB-EBI/119860/2010, SFRH/BPD/95125/2013]
  2. University of Malaya-Ministry of Education (UM-MoE) High Impact Research (HIR) [UM.C/HIR/MOHE/13/5 (h-50001-00-A000033)]
  3. MRC [MR/L015080/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/EBB-EBI/119860/2010] Funding Source: FCT
  5. Health and Care Research Wales [HS-14-54] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [MR/L015080/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Helicobacter pylori genetic diversity is known to be influenced by mobile genomic elements. Here we focused on prophages, the least characterized mobile elements of H. pylori. We present the full genomic sequences, insertion sites and phylogenetic analysis of 28 prophages found in H. pylori isolates from patients of distinct disease types, ranging from gastritis to gastric cancer, and geographic origins, covering most continents. The genome sizes of these prophages range from 22.6-33.0 Kbp, consisting of 27-39 open reading frames. A 36.6% GC was found in prophages in contrast to 39% in H. pylori genome. Remarkably a conserved integration site was found in over 50% of the cases. Nearly 40% of the prophages harbored insertion sequences (IS) previously described in H. pylori. Tandem repeats were frequently found in the intergenic region between the prophage at the 3' end and the bacterial gene. Furthermore, prophage genomes present a robust phylogeographic pattern, revealing four distinct clusters: one African, one Asian and two European prophage populations. Evidence of recombination was detected within the genome of some prophages, resulting in genome mosaics composed by different populations, which may yield additional H. pylori phenotypes.

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