4.7 Article

Characterization and genomic analyses of two newly isolated Morganella phages define distant members among Tevenvirinae and Autographivirinae subfamilies

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep46157

关键词

-

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [UID/BIO/04469/2013, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006684, PTDC/BBB-BSS/6471/2014 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016678)]
  2. KU Leuven GOA Grant 'Phage Biosystems'
  3. Herculesstichting [R-3986]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Morganella morganii is a common but frequent neglected environmental opportunistic pathogen which can cause deadly nosocomial infections. The increased number of multidrug-resistant M. morganii isolates motivates the search for alternative and effective antibacterials. We have isolated two novel obligatorily lytic M. morganii bacteriophages (vB_ MmoM_ MP1, vB_ MmoP_ MP2) and characterized them with respect to specificity, morphology, genome organization and phylogenetic relationships. MP1' s dsDNA genome consists of 163,095 bp and encodes 271 proteins, exhibiting low DNA (< 40%) and protein (< 70%) homology to other members of the Tevenvirinae. Its unique property is a > 10 kb chromosomal inversion that encompass the baseplate assembly and head outer capsid synthesis genes when compared to other T- even bacteriophages. MP2 has a dsDNA molecule with 39,394 bp and encodes 55 proteins, presenting significant genomic (70%) and proteomic identity (86%) but only to Morganella bacteriophage MmP1. MP1 and MP2 are then novel members of Tevenvirinae and Autographivirinae, respectively, but differ significantly from other tailed bacteriophages of these subfamilies to warrant proposing new genera. Both bacteriophages together could propagate in 23 of 27 M. morganii clinical isolates of different origin and antibiotic resistance profiles, making them suitable for further studies on a development of bacteriophage cocktail for potential therapeutic applications.

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