4.4 Article

Visualization and characterization of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 pellicles

期刊

MICROBIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 688-702

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.13385

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish MINECO/MICINN - European Regional Development Fund [BIO2014-55075-P, BIO2017-83533-P]
  2. Junta de Andalucia - European Regional Development Fund [P10-CVI-5800]
  3. Ciencia sem Fronteiras fellowship from the CAPES-Brazil [BEX10043/13-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellulose, whose production is controlled by c-di-GMP, is a commonly found exopolysaccharide in bacterial biofilms. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pto) DC3000, a model organism for molecular studies of plant-pathogen interactions, carries the wssABCDEFGHI operon for the synthesis of acetylated cellulose. The high intracellular levels of the second messenger c-di-GMP induced by the overexpression of the heterologous diguanylate cyclase PleD stimulate cellulose production and enhance air-liquid biofilm (pellicle) formation. To characterize the mechanisms involved in Pto DC3000 pellicle formation, we studied this process using mutants lacking flagella, biosurfactant or different extracellular matrix components, and compared the pellicles produced in the absence and in the presence of PleD. We have discovered that neither alginate nor the biosurfactant syringafactin are needed for their formation, whereas cellulose and flagella are important but not essential. We have also observed that the high c-di-GMP levels conferred more cohesion to Pto cells within the pellicle and induced the formation of intracellular inclusion bodies and extracellular fibres and vesicles. Since the pellicles were very labile and this greatly hindered their handling and processing for microscopy, we have also developed new methods to collect and process them for scanning and transmission electron microscopy. These techniques open up new perspectives for the analysis of fragile biofilms in other bacterial strains.

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

4.4
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