3.9 Article

Identification of a haemolysin-like peptide with antibacterial activity using the draft genome sequence of Staphylococcus epidermidis strain A487

期刊

FEMS IMMUNOLOGY AND MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 273-282

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2011.00811.x

关键词

haemolysin; antibacterial peptides; MRSA; coagulase-negative staphylococci; purification; heat-labile neutralizing agent

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0881347]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0881347] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our interest in Staphylococcus epidermidis strain A487 was prompted by the unusual nature of its inhibitory activity in screening tests against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates. The inhibitory activity was detected in deferred antagonism tests only if the agar plate was preheated for at least 35 min at >= 55 degrees C before inoculation of the indicator bacteria, this phenomenon indicating possible involvement of a heat-labile immunity agent or protease. The inhibitor was purified to homogeneity by ammonium sulphate precipitation, followed by cation-exchange and reversed-phase chromatography. Tandem MS revealed a novel peptide of molecular weight 2588.4 Da. The draft genome sequence of strain A487 was determined using 454 GS FLX technology, allowing the identification of the structural gene (hlp) encoding the mature peptide MQFITDLIK KAVDFFKGLFGNK. The deduced amino acid sequence of peptide 487 exhibited 70.8% similarity to that of a putative haemolysin from Staphylococcus cohnii. Analysis of the genome of strain A487 showed several additional inhibitor-encoding genes, including hld, the determinant for staphylococcal delta-lysin. This work indicates that potentially useful inhibitors could be overlooked in agar-based inhibitor screening programmes lacking a heat pretreatment step and also highlights the utility of draft genome sequence examination in antibacterial agent discovery.

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

3.9
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