4.8 Review

Phage or foe: an insight into the impact of viral predation on microbial communities

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 1171-1179

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41396-018-0049-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain [AGL2015-65673-R]
  2. EU ANIWHA ERA-NET BLAAT
  3. FWO Vlaanderen [WO.016.14]
  4. Program of Science, Technology and Innovation [GRUPIN14-139]
  5. FEDER EU funds, Principado de Asturias, Spain [GRUPIN14-139]
  6. Marie Curie Clarin-Cofund grant
  7. bacteriophage network FAGOMAII

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since their discovery, bacteriophages have been traditionally regarded as the natural enemies of bacteria. However, recent advances in molecular biology techniques, especially data from omics analyses, have revealed that the interplay between bacterial viruses and their hosts is far more intricate than initially thought. On the one hand, we have become more aware of the impact of viral predation on the composition and genetic makeup of microbial communities thanks to genomic and metagenomic approaches. Moreover, data obtained from transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies have shown that responses to phage predation are complex and diverse, varying greatly depending on the bacterial host, phage, and multiplicity of infection. Interestingly, phage exposure may alter different phenotypes, including virulence and biofilm formation. The complexity of the interactions between microbes and their viral predators is also evidenced by the link between quorum-sensing signaling pathways and bacteriophage resistance. Overall, new data increasingly suggests that both temperate and virulent phages have a positive effect on the evolution and adaptation of microbial populations. From this perspective, further research is still necessary to fully understand the interactions between phage and host under conditions that allow co-existence of both populations, reflecting more accurately the dynamics in natural microbial communities.

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