4.4 Article

Five-member gene family of Bartonella quintana

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 71, 期 2, 页码 814-821

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.2.814-821.2003

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R15 AI045534, R15 AI045534-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bartonella quintana, the agent of trench fever and an etiologic agent of bacillary angiomatosis, has an extraordinarily high hemin requirement for growth compared to other bacterial pathogens. We previously identified the major hemin receptor of the pathogen as a 30-kDa surface protein, termed HbpA. This report describes four additional homologues that share approximately 48% amino acid sequence identity with hbpA. Three of the genes form a paralagous cluster, termed hbpCAB, whereas the other members, hbpD and hbpE, are unlinked. Secondary structure predictions and other evidence suggest that Hbp family members are beta-barrels located in the outer membrane and contain eight transmembrane domains plus four extracellular loops. Homologs from a variety of gram-negative pathogens were identified, including Bartonella henselae Pap31, Brucella Omp31, Agrobacterium tumefaciens Omp25, and neisserial opacity proteins (Opa). Family members expressed in vitro-synthesized proteins ranging from ca. 26.5 to 35.1 kDa, with the exception of HbpB, an similar to55.9-kDa protein whose respective gene has been disrupted by a similar to510 GC-rich element containing variable-number tandem repeats. Transcription analysis by quantitative reverse transcriptase-PCR (RT-PCR) indicates that all family members are expressed under normal culture conditions, with hbpD and hbpB transcripts being the most abundant and the rarest, respectively. Mutagenesis of hbpA by allelic exchange produced a strain that exhibited an enhanced hemin-binding phenotype relative to the parental strain, and analysis by quantitative RT-PCR showed elevated transcript levels for the other hbp family members, suggesting that compensatory expression occurs.

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