4.8 Article

Carbon nutrition of Escherichia coli in the mouse intestine

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0307888101

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR 01005] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI048945, R01 AI 48945] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whole-genome expression profiling revealed Escherichia coli MG1655 genes induced by growth on mucus, conditions designed to mimic nutrient availability in the mammalian intestine. Most were nutritional genes corresponding to catabolic pathways for nutrients found in mucus. We knocked out several pathways and tested the relative fitness of the mutants for colonization of the mouse intestine in competition with their wild-type parent. We found that only mutations in sugar pathways affected colonization, not phospholipid and amino acid catabolism, not gluconeogenesis, not the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and not the pentose phosphate pathway. Gluconate appeared to be a major carbon source used by E. coli MG1655 to colonize, having an impact on both the initiation and maintenance stages. N-acetylglucosamine and N-acetylneuraminic acid appeared to be involved in initiation, but not maintenance. Glucuronate, mannose, fucose, and ribose appeared to be involved in maintenance, but not initiation. The in vitro order of preference for these seven sugars paralleled the relative impact of the corresponding metabolic lesions on colonization: gluconate > N-acetylglucosamine > N-acetylneuraminic acid = glucuronate > mannose > fucose > ribose. The results of this systematic analysis of nutrients used by E. coli MG1655 to colonize the mouse intestine are intriguing in light of the nutrient-niche hypothesis, which states that the ecological niches within the intestine are defined by nutrient availability. Because humans are presumably colonized with different commensal strains, differences in nutrient availability may provide an open niche for infecting E. coli pathogens in some individuals and a barrier to infection in others.

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