Furthermore, the levels of adherence and invasion expressed

Furthermore, the levels of adherence and invasion expressed I-BET151 solubility dmso as percentage of input or inoculum counts was very similar to that found in other studies [17]. DNA sequencing of the CJIE1-1 prophage from isolate 00–2425 [6] has demonstrated the presence of a few genes associated with the prophage that are likely not important for prophage structure, life cycle, or replication, ie. that appear to be cargo genes, in

addition to a number of selleck chemicals llc hypothetical proteins. Among the putative cargo genes are: the CJE0220 homolog, a DAM methylase; ORF3, a KAP family P loop domain protein; a CJE0256 homolog, dns, an extracellular DNase; ORFs 10 and 11 inserted in the early region of the prophage with no homology to any protein of known function within GenBank. We speculate that the effects of the CJIE1-1 prophage on cells in culture are mediated either by a novel effector

or by a regulator of virulence genes or even this website general metabolism within the C. jejuni bacterial cell. Differences in protein expression between isolates with and without CJIE1 in iTRAQ experiments support this hypothesis (unpublished data). No consistent or statistically significant differences in motility were found when comparing isolates with and without the prophage. The differences in adherence and invasion were therefore not directly the result of differences in motility, and were also not likely to be due to differences in gene content, other than the previously noted prophage genes, or growth rate. The four isolates used were all obtained at the same time and in the same place during an outbreak Thymidylate synthase of disease. They were the same subtype and

had indistinguishable gene content as measured by comparative genomic hybridization DNA microarray analysis except for the fact that isolate 00–2426 lacked the CJIE1-family prophage. Though a consistent difference in growth rate was seen during mid-logarithmic phase between the isolate lacking the prophage and the three isolates carrying the prophage, this difference was extremely subtle. It does not seem likely that this degree of difference could be responsible for the differences seen in adherence and invasion. It must be noted that the combination of microarray data and calculation of genome sizes does not prove absolutely that the four isolates have identical DNA sequences other than the presence or absence of CJIE1. Because the microarray had probes for genes from only two strains it is possible that other genes or DNA segments could be present. However, calculation of genome sizes from PFGE fragments sizes was done previously with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and the resulting data indicate that genomes of the isolates 00–2425 and 00–2544 carrying CJIE1 differed from 00–2426, which lacked CJIE1, by 39 kb [3]. This constrains the variability that would be expected for the four genomes mainly to the presence or absence of the prophage and to DNA sequence changes arising from horizontal gene transfer.

Comments are closed.