4.4 Article

Multilocus sequence typing of Streptococcus pyogenes representing most known emm types and distinctions among subpopulation genetic structures

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 186, 期 13, 页码 4285-4294

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.186.13.4285-4294.2004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI053826, R56 AI053826, R01 AI053826] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM60793, R01 GM060793] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A long-term goal is to characterize the full range of genetic diversity within Streptococcus pyogenes as it exists in the world today. Since the emm locus is subject to strong diversifying selection, emm type was used as a guide for identifying a genetically diverse set of strains. This report contains a description of multilocus sequence typing based on seven housekeeping loci for 495 isolates representing 158 emm types, yielding 238 unique combinations of sequence type and emm type. A genotypic marker for tissue site preference (emm pattern) revealed that only 17% of the emm types displayed the marker representing strong preference for infection at the throat and that 39% of emm types had the marker for skin tropism, whereas 41% of emm types harbored the marker for no obvious tissue site preference. As a group, the emm types bearing the emm pattern marker indicative of no obvious tissue site preference were far less likely to have two distinct emm types associated with the same sequence type than either of the two subpopulations having markers for strong tissue tropisms (P < 0.002). In addition, all genetic diversification events clearly ascribed to a recombinational mechanism involved strains of only two of the emm pattern-defined subpopulations, those representing skin specialists and generalists. The findings suggest that the population genetic structure differs for the tissue-defined subpopulations of S. pyogenes. The observed differences may partly reflect differential host immune selection pressures.

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

4.4
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