4.2 Article

Identifying the Genes Responsible for Iron-Limited Condition in Riemerella anatipestifer CH-1 through RNA-Seq-Based Analysis

期刊

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 2017, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2017/8682057

关键词

-

资金

  1. International S&T Cooperation Program of Sichuan Province [2016HH0052]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31302131]
  3. Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20135103120006]
  4. National Science and Technology [2015BAD12B05]
  5. China Agricultural Research System [CARS-43-8]
  6. Integration and Demonstration of Key Technologies for Duck Industrialization in Sichuan Province [2014NZ0030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the important elements for most bacterial growth is iron, the bioavailability of which is limited in hosts. Riemerella anatipestifer (R. anatipestifer, RA), an important duck pathogen, requires iron to live. However, the genes involved in iron metabolism and the mechanisms of iron transport are largely unknown. Here, we investigated the transcriptomic effects of iron limitation condition on R. anatipestifer CH-1 using the RNA-Seq and RNA-Seq-based analysis. Data analysis revealed genes encoding functions related to iron homeostasis, including a number of putative TonB-dependent receptor systems, a HmuY-like protein-dependent hemin (an iron-containing porphyrin) uptake system, a Feo system, a gene cluster related to starch utilization, and genes encoding hypothetical proteins that were significantly upregulated in response to iron limitation. Compared to the number of upregulated genes, more genes were significantly downregulated in response to iron limitation. The downregulated genes mainly encoded a number of outer membrane receptors, DNA-binding proteins, phage-related proteins, and many hypothetical proteins. This information suggested that RNA-Seq-based analysis in iron-limited medium is an effective and fast method for identifying genes involved in iron uptake in R. anatipestifer CH-1.

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

4.2
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