In and out: an analysis of epibiotic vs periplasmic bacterial predators

内外:附生细菌捕食者与周质细菌捕食者的分析

阅读:2

Abstract

Bdellovibrio and like organisms (BALO) are obligate predators of Gram-negative bacteria, belonging to the α- and δ-proteobacteria. BALO prey using either a periplasmic or an epibiotic predatory strategy, but the genetic background underlying these phenotypes is not known. Here we compare the epibiotic Bdellovibrio exovorus and Micavibrio aeruginosavorus to the periplasmic B. bacteriovorus and Bacteriovorax marinus. Electron microscopy showed that M. aeruginosavorus, but not B. exovorus, can attach to prey cells in a non-polar manner through its longitudinal side. Both these predators were resistant to a surprisingly high number of antibiotic compounds, possibly via 26 and 19 antibiotic-resistance genes, respectively, most of them encoding efflux pumps. Comparative genomic analysis of all the BALOs revealed that epibiotic predators have a much smaller genome (ca. 2.5 Mbp) than the periplasmic predators (ca. 3.5 Mbp). Additionally, periplasmic predators have, on average, 888 more proteins, at least 60% more peptidases, and one more rRNA operon. Fifteen and 219 protein families were specific to the epibiotic and the periplasmic predators, respectively, the latter clearly forming the core of the periplasmic 'predatome', which is upregulated during the growth phase. Metabolic deficiencies of epibiotic genomes include the synthesis of inosine, riboflavin, vitamin B6 and the siderophore aerobactin. The phylogeny of the epibiotic predators suggests that they evolved by convergent evolution, with M. aeruginosavorus originating from a non-predatory ancestor while B. exovorus evolved from periplasmic predators by gene loss.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。