4.5 Article

Transcriptome analysis of Sulfolobus solfataricus infected with two related fuselloviruses reveals novel insights into the regulation of CRISPR-Cas system

期刊

BIOCHIMIE
卷 118, 期 -, 页码 322-332

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biochi.2015.04.006

关键词

CRISPR-Cas system; Sulfolobus solfataricus; Fuselloviridae; Sulfolobus spindle-shaped virus; Transcriptome analysis

资金

  1. Regione Campania, legge 5 (CUP) [E69D15000210002]
  2. Danish Independent Research Council [DFF-0602-02196B, DFF1323-00330, 11-106683]
  3. Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universita e della Ricerca Scientifica (Progetti di Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale) [E61J10000020001]
  4. Carlsberg Foundation [2013_01_0060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fuselloviruses SSV1 and SSV2 are model systems to investigate virus host relationships in stably infected cells thanks to their temperate nature. Although they are very similar in morphology, genome organization and gene synteny, their replication is induced by different stimuli, i.e.: by UV-light exposure (for SSV1) and by the growth progression of the host (for SSV2). In this study, we have analysed global gene expression in SSV1- and SSV2-lysogens of Sulfolobus solfataricus P2 in the absence of any stimuli. Additionally, the interplay among SSV1, SSV2 and the host has been investigated in a double-infected strain to explore both virus-host and virus-virus interactions. Whereas SSV1 did not induce major changes of the host gene expression, SSV2 elicited a strong host response, which includes the transcriptional activation of CRISPR loci and cas genes. As a consequence, a significant decrease of the SSV2 copy number has been observed, which in turn led to provirus-capture into the host chromosome. Results of this study have revealed novel aspects of the host viral interaction in the frame of the CRISPR-response. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. and Societe Francaise de Biochimie et Biologie Moleculaire (SFBBM). All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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