4.6 Article

Hitchhiking motility of Staphylococcus aureus involves the interaction between its wall teichoic acids and lipopolysaccharide of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1068251

关键词

Staphylococcus aureus; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; TagO; teichoic acids; lipopolysaccharide; hitchhiking motility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that Staphylococcus aureus relies on the presence of wall teichoic acids (WTA) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to hitchhike motile bacteria like Pseudomonas aeruginosa for movement. The hitchhiking motility of S. aureus is reduced when the gene encoding the WTA synthesis enzyme, TagO, is deleted, but restored when the gene is complemented. The study also shows that P. aeruginosa promotes the movement of S. aureus in the digestive system of Caenorhabditis elegans and mice.
Staphylococcus aureus, which lacks pili and flagella, is nonmotile. However, it hitchhikes motile bacteria, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to migrate in the environment. This study demonstrated that the hitchhiking motility of S. aureus SA113 was reduced after the tagO, which encodes an enzyme for wall teichoic acids (WTA) synthesis, was deleted. The hitchhiking motility was restored after the mutation was complemented by transforming a plasmid expressing TagO into the mutant. We also showed that adding purified lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to a culture that contains S. aureus SA113 and P. aeruginosa PAO1, reduced the movement of S. aureus, showing that WTA and LPS are involved in the hitchhiking motility of S. aureus. This study also found that P. aeruginosa promoted the movement of S. aureus in the digestive tract of Caenorhabditis elegans and in mice. In conclusion, this study reveals how S. aureus hitchhikes P. aeruginosa for translocation in an ecosystem. The results from this study improve our understanding on how a nonmotile pathogen moves in the environment and spreads in animals.

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

4.6
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