4.8 Article

Bacterial virulence phenotypes of Escherichia coli and host susceptibility determine risk for urinary tract infections

期刊

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 382, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf1283

关键词

-

资金

  1. Monsanto Excellence Fund Graduate Fellowship
  2. Lucille P.Markey Pathway award
  3. NIH, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [RO1 DK051406]
  4. Office of Research on Women's Health Specialized Center of Research [P50 DK064540]
  5. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [U19AI110818]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are caused by uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) strains. In contrast to many enteric E. coli pathogroups, no genetic signature has been identified for UPEC strains. We conducted a high-resolution comparative genomic study using E. coli isolates collected from the urine of women suffering from frequent recurrent UTIs. These isolates were genetically diverse and varied in their urovirulence, that is, their ability to infect the bladder in a mouse model of cystitis. We found no set of genes, including previously defined putative urovirulence factors (PUFs), that were predictive of urovirulence. In addition, in some patients, the E. coli strain causing a recurrent UTI had fewer PUFs than the supplanted strain. In competitive experimental infections in mice, the supplanting strain was more efficient at colonizing the mouse bladder than the supplanted strain. Despite the lack of a clear genomic signature for urovirulence, comparative transcriptomic and phenotypic analyses revealed that the expression of key conserved functions during culture, such as motility and metabolism, could be used to predict subsequent colonization of the mouse bladder. Together, our findings suggest that UTI risk and outcome may be determined by complex interactions between host susceptibility and the urovirulence potential of diverse 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

4.8
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