4.4 Article

A point mutation in the mma3 gene is responsible for impaired methoxymycolic acid production in Mycobacterium bovis BCG strains obtained after 1927

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 182, 期 12, 页码 3394-3399

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.182.12.3394-3399.2000

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 AI000783-11] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BCG vaccines are substrains of Mycobacterium bovis derived by attenuation in vitro. After the original attenuation (1908 to 1921), BCG strains were maintained by serial propagation in different BCG laboratories (1921 to 1961). As a result, various BCG substrains developed which are now known to differ in a number of genetic and phenotypic properties. However, to date, none of these differences has permitted a direct phenotype-genotype link. Since BCG strains differ in their abilities to synthesize methoxymycolic acids and since recent work bras shown that the mma3 gene is responsible for O-methylation of hydroxymycolate precursors to form methoxymycolic acids, we analyzed methoxymycolate production and mma3 gene sequences for a genetically defined collection of BCG strains. We found that BCG strains obtained from the Pasteur Institute In 1927 and earlier produced methoxymycolates in vitro but that those obtained from the Pasteur Institute in 1931 and later all failed to synthesize methoxymycolates, and furthermore, the mma3 sequence of the latter strains differs from that of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv by a point mutation at bp 293, Site-specific introduction of this guanine-to-adenine mutation into wild-type mma3 (resulting in the replacement of glycine 98 with aspartic acid) eliminated the ability of this enzyme to produce O-methylated mycolic acids when the mutant was cloned in tandem with mma4 into Mycobacterium smegmatis. These findings indicate that a point mutation in mma3 occurred between 1927 and 1931, and that this mutant population became the dominant clone of BCG at the Pasteur Institute.

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