3.9 Article

Comparison of mammalian cell entry operons of mycobacteria: in silico analysis and expression profiling

期刊

FEMS IMMUNOLOGY AND MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 185-195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.femsim.2004.08.013

关键词

nice operons; mycobacteria; in silico analysis; domains; expression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mammalian cell entry (mce) operons, implicated in the entry of mycobacteria into host cells, are present in pathogenic and saprophytic species. It is likely that the genes in these operons have functions other than those required for entry into host cells. Using in silico analysis we have identified domains within the mce operons that might justify their occurrence in saprophytic species like Mycobacterium smegmatis. Our analysis identified in addition to the mce domain, the presence of the Tt2B and Ttg2C domains, typical of proteins involved in transport. We have also analysed and compared the expression profile between mce operons of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium bovis and M. smegmatis under different growth conditions. In case of M. smegmatis, each operon presented domain truncation for at least one gene. We observe differential expression among the operons in M. smegmatis growing under different culture conditions. Bacilli growing in nutritionally rich medium with aeration, only the mce4 operon was expressed while during stationary phase of a standing culture, all four mce operons were expressed. In M. bovis, in addition to the absence of the mce3 operon, several protein domains encoded by the other operons were truncated. We detected expression of the mce2 operon in the exponential and stationary growth phase, while the mce1 operon was only expressed in the stationary growth phase. Differential expression of mce operons and their redundancy in the genome of the majority members of mycobacteria are discussed in view of our results. (C) 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of the Federation of European Microbiological Societies.

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

3.9
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