4.5 Article

Donor strand complementation governs intersubunit interaction of fimbriae of the alternate chaperone pathway

期刊

MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 1372-1384

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05612.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [T32HL007291] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM055722] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32-HL07291] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM055722] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fimbrial filaments assembled by distinct chaperone pathways share a common mechanism of intersubunit interaction, as elucidated for colonization factor antigen I (CFA/I), archetype of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) Class 5 fimbriae. We postulated that a highly conserved beta-strand at the major subunit N-terminus represents the donor strand, analogous to interactions within Class I pili. We show here that CFA/I fimbriae utilize donor strand complementation to promote proper folding of and interactions between CFA/I subunits. We constructed a series of genetic variants of CfaE, the CFA/I adhesin, incorporating a C-terminal extension comprising a flexible linker and 10-19 of the N-terminal residues of CfaB, the major subunit. Variants with a donor strand complement (dsc) of >= 12 residues were recoverable from periplasmic fractions. Genetic disruption of the donor beta-strand reduced CfaE recovery. A hexahistidine-tagged variant of dsc(19)CfaE formed soluble monomers, folded into beta-sheet conformation, displayed adhesion characteristic of CFA/I, and elicited antibodies that inhibited mannose-resistant haemagglutination by ETEC expressing CFA/I, CS4 and CS14 fimbriae. Immunoelectron microscopy indicated that CfaE was confined to the distal fimbrial tip. Our findings provide the basis to elucidate structure and function of this class of fimbrial adhesins and assess the feasibility of an adhesin-based vaccine.

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

4.5
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