4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Role of vapBC toxin-antitoxin loci in the thermal stress response of Sulfolobus solfataricus

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL SOCIETY TRANSACTIONS
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 123-126

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BST0370123

关键词

archaeon; heat shock; hyperthermophile; stress response; Sulfolobus solfataricus; toxin-antioxin locus

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM008776, T32 GM008776-09] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [T32] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0730091] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TA (toxin-antitoxin) loci are ubiquitous in prokaryotic micro-organisms, including archaea, yet their physiological function is largely unknown. For example, preliminary reports have suggested that TA loci are microbial stress-response elements, although it was recently shown that knocking out all known chromosomally located TA loci in Escherichio coli did not have an impact on survival under certain types of stress. The hyperthermophilic crenarchaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus encodes at least 26 vapBC (where vop is virulence-associated protein) family TA loci in its genome. VapCs are PIN (PilT N-terminus) domain proteins with putative ribonuclease activity, while VapBs are proteolytically labile proteins, which purportedly function to silence VapCs when associated as a cognate pair. Global transcriptional analysis of S. solfataricus heat-shock-response dynamics (temperature shift from 80 to 90 degrees C) revealed that several vopBC genes were triggered by the thermal shift, suggesting a role in heat-shock-response. indeed, knocking out a specific vopBC locus in S. solfatoricus substantially changed the transcriptome and, in one case, rendered the crenarchaeon heat-shock-labile. These findings indicate that more work needs to be done to determine the role of VapBCs in S. solfatoricus and other thermophilic archaea, especially with respect to post-transcriptional regulation.

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