4.6 Article

Investigation of the Relationship between Lactococcal Host Cell Wall Polysaccharide Genotype and 936 Phage Receptor Binding Protein Phylogeny

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 79, 期 14, 页码 4385-4392

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00653-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [08/IN.1/B1909]
  2. University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  3. Enterprise Ireland grant under the Innovation Partnership Scheme [IP2009-0013]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-11-BSV8-004-01 Lactophages]
  5. FEI [Forschungskreis der Ernahrungsindustrie e.V., Bonn, Germany]
  6. Ministry of Economics and Technology [AiF-FV 14339N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparative genomics of 11 lactococcal 936-type phages combined with host range analysis allowed subgrouping of these phage genomes, particularly with respect to their encoded receptor binding proteins. The so-called pellicle or cell wall polysaccharide of Lactococcus lactis, which has been implicated as a host receptor of (certain) 936-type phages, is specified by a large gene cluster, which, among different lactococcal strains, contains highly conserved regions as well as regions of diversity. The regions of diversity within this cluster on the genomes of lactococcal strains MG1363, SK11, IL1403, KF147, CV56, and UC509.9 were used for the development of a multiplex PCR system to identify the pellicle genotype of lactococcal strains used in this study. The resulting comparative analysis revealed an apparent correlation between the pellicle genotype of a given host strain and the host range of tested 936-type phages. Such a correlation would allow prediction of the intrinsic 936-type phage sensitivity of a particular lactococcal strain and substantiates the notion that the lactococcal pellicle polysaccharide represents the receptor for (certain) 936-type phages while also partially explaining the molecular reasons behind the observed narrow host range of such phages.

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