4.4 Article

Regulation of hypercompetence in Legionella pneumophila

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 186, 期 12, 页码 3814-3825

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.186.12.3814-3825.2004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [T32 AI007172, 5 T32 AI07172-22, R01 AI048052] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although many bacteria are known to be naturally competent for DNA uptake, this ability varies dramatically between species and even within a single species, some isolates display high levels of competence while others seem to be completely nontransformable. Surprisingly, many nontransformable bacterial strains appear to encode components necessary for DNA uptake. We believe that many such strains are actually competent but that this ability has been overlooked because standard laboratory conditions are inappropriate for competence induction. For example, most strains of the gram-negative bacterium Legionella pneumophila are not competent under normal laboratory conditions of aerobic growth at 37degreesC. However, it was previously reported that microaerophillic growth at 37degreesC allows L. pneumophila serogroup I strain AA100 to be naturally transformed. Here we report that another L. pneumophila serogroup I strain, Lp02, can also be transformed under these conditions. Moreover, Lp02 can be induced to high levels of competence by a second set of conditions, aerobic growth at 30degreesC. In contrast to Lp02, AA100 is only minimally transformable at 30degreesC, indicating that Lp02 is hypercompetent under these conditions. To identify potential causes of hypercompetence, we isolated mutants of AA100 that exhibited enhanced DNA uptake. Characterization of these mutants revealed two genes, proQ and comR, that are involved in regulating competence in L. pneumophila. This approach, involving the isolation of hypercompetent mutants, shows great promise as a method for identifying natural transformation in bacterial species previously thought to be nontransformable.

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