4.4 Article

Subtractive hybridization identifies a novel predicted protein mediating epithelial cell invasion by virulent serotype III group B Streptococcus agalactiae

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 71, 期 12, 页码 6857-6863

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.12.6857-6863.2003

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA021765, P30 CA21765] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI40918] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Group B Streptococcus agalactiae bacteria (group B streptococci [GBS]) are the most common cause of serious bacterial infection in newborn infants. The majority of serotype III-related cases of neonatal disease are caused by a genetically related subgroup of bacteria, restriction fragment digest pattern (RDP) type III-3, suggesting that these strains possess unique genes contributing to virulence. We used genomic subtractive hybridization to identify regions of genomic DNA unique to virulent RDP type III-3 GBS strains. Within one of these III-3-specific regions is a 1,506-bp open reading frame, spb1 (surface protein of group B streptococcus 1). A mutant type III GBS strain lacking Spb1 was constructed in virulent RDP type III-3 strain 874391, and the interactions of the wild-type and spb1 isogenic mutant with a variety of epithelial cells important to GBS colonization and infection were compared. While adherence of the spb1 isogenic mutant to A549 respiratory, C2Bbe1 colonic, and HeLa cervical epithelial cells was slightly lower than that of the 874391 strain, invasion of the Spb1(-) mutant was significantly reduced with these cell lines compared to what was seen with 874391. The defect in epithelial invasion was corrected by supplying spb1 in trans. These observations suggest that Spb1 contributes to the pathogenesis of neonatal GBS infection by mediating internalization of virulent serotype III GBS and confirm that understanding of the population structure of bacteria may lead to insights into the pathogenesis of human infections.

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