4.5 Article

Targeted gene replacement of a ferredoxin gene in Trichomonas vaginalis does not lead to metronidazole resistance

期刊

MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 115-122

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03791.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R37AI027857, R29AI027857, R01AI030537, R01AI027857] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [AI07323, AI 27857, AI 30537] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ferredoxin, Fd, is often deficient in metronidazole-resistant strains of Trichomonas vaginalis and is thought to be necessary for drug activation. To directly test whether Fd is essential for metronidazole susceptibility, gene replacement technology has been developed for T. vaginalis. The selectable marker gene neomycin phosphotransferase (NEO) flanked by similar to2.6 and similar to2.0 kBp of the Fd 5' and 3' flanking regions (pKO-FD-NEO) was introduced into cells on linear DNA and selected for NEO gene expression. Stable transformants were shown to contain the NEO gene in the Fd locus and to have completely lost the Fd gene. Northern and immunoblot analyses confirm the loss of Fd mRNA and protein in pKO-FD-NEO cells. Analyses of the activity of hydrogenosomal proteins in Fd KO cells show a fourfold increase in hydrogenase activity and a 95% decrease in pyruvate/ferredoxin oxidoreductase (PFO) activity. In contrast, PFO and hydrogenase mRNA levels are unchanged. Surprisingly, Fd KO cells are not resistant to metronidazole under aerobic or anaerobic conditions. These cells are capable of producing molecular hydrogen, albeit at 50% the level of the parental strain, demonstrating that the Fd gene product eliminated in KO cells is neither necessary for hydrogen production nor metronidazole activation. Together these data indicate the presence of unidentified Fds or flavodoxins capable of drug activation or an unidentified mechanism that does not require either PFO or Fd for metronidazole activation.

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