4.7 Article

A new perspective on Listeria monocytogenes evolution

期刊

PLOS PATHOGENS
卷 4, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000146

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institut Pasteur
  2. Institut de Veille Sanitaire (St-Maurice, France)
  3. GPH Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Listeria monocytogenes is a model organism for cellular microbiology and host-pathogen interaction studies and an important food-borne pathogen widespread in the environment, thus representing an attractive model to study the evolution of virulence. The phylogenetic structure of L. monocytogenes was determined by sequencing internal portions of seven housekeeping genes (3,288 nucleotides) in 360 representative isolates. Fifty-eight of the 126 disclosed sequence types were grouped into seven well-demarcated clonal complexes (clones) that comprised almost 75% of clinical isolates. Each clone had a unique or dominant serotype (4b for clones 1, 2 and 4, 1/2b for clones 3 and 5, 1/2a for clone 7, and 1/2c for clone 9), with no association of clones with clinical forms of human listeriosis. Homologous recombination was extremely limited (r/m, 1 for nucleotides), implying long-term genetic stability of multilocus genotypes over time. Bayesian analysis based on 438 SNPs recovered the three previously defined lineages, plus one unclassified isolate of mixed ancestry. The phylogenetic distribution of serotypes indicated that serotype 4b evolved once from 1/2b, the likely ancestral serotype of lineage I. Serotype 1/2c derived once from 1/2a, with reference strain EGDe (1/2a) likely representing an intermediate evolutionary state. In contrast to housekeeping genes, the virulence factor internalin (InlA) evolved by localized recombination resulting in a mosaic pattern, with convergent evolution indicative of natural selection towards a truncation of InlA protein. This work provides a reference evolutionary framework for future studies on L. monocytogenes epidemiology, ecology, and virulence.

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