General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Article: Have archaeal genes contributed to bacterial virulence?

Started by Robert Karl Sto · · Last activity · 1 post · 345 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
8 May 2004
Last activity
8 May 2004
Original author
Robert Karl Sto
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
345
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–1 of 1
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Have archaeal genes contributed to bacterial virulence?

    Uri Gophna, Robert L. Charlebois and W. Ford Doolittle

    Trends in Microbiology 2004, 12:213-219

    Although archaea have not been described as pathogens, it
    has recently been suggested that genes transferred from
    archaea might specifically contribute to bacterial
    virulence. Here, we survey 73 genomes of bacterial pathogens
    for the presence of genes originating from archaea. We
    describe 43 cases in which acquisition of archaeal genes by
    bacterial pathogens can be demonstrated. Although no bona
    fide virulence factors are among these acquired genes,
    several of them probably affect pathogen-host interactions.

    Archaea are as diverse as bacteria and as widely distributed
    around the world. It is therefore mysterious that there are
    no diseases of archaeal origin. Eckburg and colleagues [1]
    have recently reasoned that such disorders might have been
    systematically overlooked, whereas Faguy [2] has suggested a
    different context in which archaea could be relevant to
    disease: as donors through lateral gene transfer (LGT) of
    virulence-promoting genes to pathogenic bacteria. When the
    genome of Escherichia coli O157:H7 was compared with that of
    K12, half a dozen O157:H7-specific genes could be recognized
    as having been derived from archaea [2]. In one case, an
    indirect argument for a role in infectivity or virulence
    could be made. Faguy argued on a more general basis that,
    for truly novel innovations in pathogenesis, bacteria might
    have often dipped into the archaeal gene pool. The idea has
    an unconventional appeal and would support claims for the
    medical relevance in studying archaea. There are
    nevertheless two reasons to be skeptical of such a notion.
    First, the divergence between bacteria and archaea is
    believed to be ancient and reflected in significant
    structural and biochemical differences between them,
    differences that should make successful LGT difficult. In
    particular, archaeal proteins involved in transcription and
    the DNA signals they recognize resemble their eukaryotic
    homologs much more than their bacterial counterparts (for
    reviews see Refs [3,4] ). Nevertheless, recent sequencing of
    archaeal and bacterial genomes has shown that inter-domain
    transfer is not uncommon [5,6] and in some extreme cases
    even rampant. Consequently, a large fraction of Thermotoga
    maritima genes appears to have archaeal origins [7,8] , and
    the archaeon Methanosarcina mazei bears a multitude of bacterial-
    derived genes, comprising up to a third of its genome [9].

    Read the rest at BioMedNet gateways.bmn.commagazine
    /article?pii=S0966842X0400068X

    Comment: These findings might point to the evolutionary
    order of single celled animals.

    Posted by Robert Karl Stonjek.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.