Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Genetics and Molecular Biology

Chromosomally Encoded hok-sok Toxin-Antitoxin System in the Fire Blight Pathogen Erwinia amylovora: Identification and Functional Characterization

Jingyu Peng, Lindsay R. Triplett, Jeffrey K. Schachterle, George W. Sundin
Emma R. Master, Editor
Jingyu Peng
aDepartment of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jingyu Peng
Lindsay R. Triplett
bDepartment of Plant Pathology and Ecology, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey K. Schachterle
aDepartment of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
George W. Sundin
aDepartment of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for George W. Sundin
Emma R. Master
University of Toronto
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00724-19
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Toxin-antitoxin (TA) systems are genetic elements composed of a protein toxin and a counteracting antitoxin that is either a noncoding RNA or protein. In type I TA systems, the antitoxin is a noncoding small RNA (sRNA) that base pairs with the cognate toxin mRNA interfering with its translation. Although type I TA systems have been extensively studied in Escherichia coli and a few human or animal bacterial pathogens, they have not been characterized in plant-pathogenic bacteria. In this study, we characterized a chromosomal locus in the plant pathogen Erwinia amylovora Ea1189 that is homologous to the hok-sok type I TA system previously identified in the Enterobacteriaceae-restricted plasmid R1. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the chromosomal location of the hok-sok locus is, thus far, unique to E. amylovora. We demonstrated that ectopic overexpression of hok is highly toxic to E. amylovora and that the sRNA sok reversed the toxicity of hok through mok, a reading frame presumably translationally coupled with hok. We also identified the region that is essential for maintenance of the main toxicity of Hok. Through a hok-sok deletion mutant (Ea1189Δhok-sok), we determined the contribution of the hok-sok locus to cellular growth, micromorphology, and catalase activity. Combined, our findings indicate that the hok-sok TA system, besides being potentially self-toxic, provides fitness advantages to E. amylovora.

IMPORTANCE Bacterial toxin-antitoxin systems have received great attention because of their potential as targets for antimicrobial development and as tools for biotechnology. Erwinia amylovora, the causal agent of fire blight disease on pome fruit trees, is a major plant-pathogenic bacterium. In this study, we identified and functionally characterized a unique chromosomally encoded hok-sok toxin-antitoxin system in E. amylovora that resembles the plasmid-encoded copies of this system in other Enterobacteriaceae. This study of a type I toxin-antitoxin system in a plant-pathogenic bacterium provides the basis to further understand the involvement of toxin-antitoxin systems during infection by a plant-pathogenic bacterium. The new linkage between the hok-sok toxin-antitoxin system and the catalase-mediated oxidative stress response leads to additional considerations of targeting this system for antimicrobial development.

INTRODUCTION

Toxin-antitoxin (TA) systems are simple genetic loci composed of two adjacent genes: a bacterial toxin and a counteracting antitoxin (1, 2). The toxins in all known cases are proteins, whereas the antitoxins can be either noncoding small RNAs (sRNAs) or proteins (2). Based on the nature of antitoxins and their mode of interactions with the toxins, TA systems have been classified into six distinct classes (3, 4). Although TA systems are abundant in bacterial genomes, the biological functions of many are still unknown, raising the question of whether certain TA modules are redundant (5, 6).

In type I TA systems, the antitoxins are mostly cis-acting sRNAs, which block translation and/or facilitate the degradation of the mRNA encoding the cognate toxin. The hok-sok type I system and its homolog flmA-flmB were first described in plasmids R1 and F, respectively, and they both confer plasmid stability via postsegregational killing (7, 8). The hok gene encodes a 52-amino-acid toxin which causes the cessation of respiration, the loss of membrane potential, and the formation of “ghost cells,” ultimately resulting in irreversible self-poisoning (7, 9). An additional reading frame, mok, was also identified, which overlaps and also encompasses the coding sequence of hok; translation of mok is coupled with that of hok, as evidenced by point mutation analysis (10). An antisense sRNA is transcribed on the opposite strand of mok and sok, sharing 10-bp complementarity to the mok reading frame but not the hok reading frame (10, 11). Sok therefore reverses hok-mediated self-toxicity through inhibiting the translation of mok. As the hok mRNA is more stable than the sRNA Sok, daughter cells that lose the plasmid are selectively killed due to the carryover of hok mRNA (10, 11).

Additional chromosomally encoded Hok homologs sharing 30% to 54% amino acid identity to the plasmid-encoded Hok protein have been identified in Escherichia coli and are sometimes present in multiple copies (12–14). For example, the E. coli K-12 chromosome carries the hok homologs hokA, hokC, and hokD, which, while highly toxic upon ectopic overexpression, may lack functionality in the wild-type (WT) strain due to insertion sequences in the reading frames (9, 12, 14). However, hokC systems without any insertion elements have been found in other strains of E. coli (12). Whether the chromosomally encoded Hok homologs have distinct or redundant biological functions is still unknown.

While some type I TA toxins cleave nucleic acids in the cytoplasm (e.g., SymE and RalR), Hok and the toxin TisB are membrane associated (15). These toxins functionally resemble pore-forming phage holin proteins, and their expression results in the collapse of membrane potential and leakage of intracellular ATP (9, 16, 17). In addition to a role in postsegregational killing, Hok and TisB are thought to contribute to bacteriophage exclusion or to antibiotic persistence, a temporary dormant state conferring tolerance to antibiotics (18–20). Moderate overexpression of hokB in E. coli leads to a significant increase in tolerance to the antibiotics ofloxacin and tobramycin, although no defect of persistence was observed in a knockout mutant of hokB (18). Deletion mutagenesis of the tisB-istR TA system in E. coli resulted in a sharp decrease in persister formation (19). Although the mechanisms regulating the activation of type I TA systems are still largely enigmatic, the GTPase Obg was found to upregulate the transcription of hokB through an unknown mechanism (18). Several type I TA systems, such as tisB-istR, dinQ-agrB, and symE-symR, have been implicated as downstream actors in the cellular SOS response, under the control of the master regulator LexA (21–24).

Although TA systems have garnered much attention in the model organism E. coli and other mammalian pathogens, few type II TA systems have been characterized in plant-pathogenic bacteria (25–30); to our knowledge, no type I TA system has been characterized in a plant pathogen. In this study, we identify a chromosomally encoded hok-sok TA system highly conserved in Erwinia amylovora, a plant pathogen in the family Enterobacteriaceae. Erwinia amylovora is listed as one of the top 10 most significant bacterial plant pathogens (31) and causes the devastating fire blight disease on Rosaceae family hosts, including apple and pear. We explored the additional beneficial roles of the hok-sok locus in E. amylovora. Our results signify a first step toward understanding why the hok-sok locus, a potentially self-destructive system, is maintained in the chromosome of E. amylovora.

RESULTS

Prediction of type I toxin-antitoxin systems in plant-pathogenic bacteria.Protein sequences of known type I toxins (15), listed in Materials and Methods, were used as query sequences in taxon-wide BLAST searches of bacterial genera that are largely comprised of plant pathogens: Acidovorax, Burkholderia, Clavibacter, Dickeya, Erwinia, Pantoea, Pectobacterium, Pseudomonas, Ralstonia, Streptomyces, Xanthomonas, and Xylella. Homologs of hok and symE were identified in a few genera from the families Enterobacteriaceae and Xanthomonadaceae (Fig. 1). No other type I toxin homologs were identified in any lineages. Hok is present in only a few genera of Enterobacteriaceae, i.e., Erwinia and Pantoea, that are phylogenetically most closely related. SymE is present in all of the Enterobacteriaceae and Xanthomonadaceae strains examined, with various copy numbers of the coding genes.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Abundance of toxins of type I toxin-antitoxin systems in major plant-pathogenic bacteria. The numbers of toxin-encoding genes are displayed in the heat map. The phylogenetic tree was constructed by the maximum likelihood method using the 16S rRNA sequences of the bacteria. The bar in the phylogenetic tree represents 1 substitution in 100 bp.

Identification of hok and sok transcripts in E. amylovora.The hok-sok locus identified in E. amylovora was located within the intergenic region between the genes EAM_0497 and EAM_0498 in the chromosomal sequence of E. amylovora strain ATCC 49946 (32). This locus was homologous to loci previously identified and characterized in plasmids R1 and F (denoted flmA-flmB) (7, 8, 10). An alignment between the E. amylovora ATCC 49946 hok-sok locus and that of plasmid R1 showed that the E. amylovora locus contains all of the conserved hok-sok regulatory elements as defined by Gerdes et al. (33) (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). As some chromosomally encoded Hok family proteins seem to be inactivated in E. coli by an insertion sequence (IS) within the reading frame of the toxin gene, we searched for IS elements in the 4,000-bp flanking sequence of the hok coding region in all E. amylovora strains with available genome sequences using the built-in BLAST function in ISfinder (34). No significant hits (E value of ≤0.05) were found in this analysis (data not shown), suggesting that the chromosomally encoded Hok protein is likely to be functional in E. amylovora. The predicted E. amylovora Hok protein shares 87% amino acid identity with Hok encoded by plasmid R1. As predicted by TMHMM server v.2.0 (35), both the predicted E. amylovora Hok and plasmid R1 Hok contain a transmembrane domain, spanning the 7th to the 26th deduced amino acids, leaving the N-terminal amino acids and the C-terminal amino acids anchored inside and outside the cell membrane, respectively (Fig. S2). Based on our BLASTn search result, the predicted reading frame of mok, translationally coupled with hok in plasmid R1 (10), overlaps the entire coding sequence of hok, and the translation start site of mok is located 57 bp upstream of the hok coding sequence. We identified the transcriptional start site of the sRNA sok using a 5′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE) assay (Fig. 2A). The full length of sok was determined to be 61 bp, not 66 bp as described for the plasmid R1. sok is transcribed from the strand opposite the hok gene and shares 9 bp of reverse complementarity with mok but has no complementarity with hok (Fig. 2B). The sRNA sok has a stem-loop structure, and the bases with reverse complementarity to mok were exposed, as predicted by the RNAfold Web server (http://rna.tbi.univie.ac.at/cgi-bin/RNAWebSuite/RNAfold.cgi) (Fig. S3).

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

(A) Determination of the transcriptional start site of the sRNA sok by 5ʹ RACE-PCR and subsequent TOPO cloning. “+” indicates a positive reaction with the Cap-Clip acid pyrophosphatase enzyme, “−” indicates a negative reaction without the enzyme, and “L” indicates the DNA ladder. (B) Relative chromosomal locations of hok, mok, and sok. (C) Phylogenetic analysis of the Hok family proteins. Sequences were analyzed using the maximum likelihood method with bootstrap analysis (1,000 replicates). Each entry is labeled with the strain name followed by the GenBank accession number of the Hok family protein if annotated. The chromosomally encoded Hok family proteins are in a light blue background, and the plasmid-encoded Hok family proteins are in a light gray background. The bar indicates the number of amino acid changes per site.

Phylogenetic analysis of the Hok family proteins.To date, all Hok family proteins have been exclusively found in bacteria within the Enterobacteriaceae family (13). To better understand the evolution of Hok in E. amylovora, we conducted a comparative analysis of predicted Hok family proteins, including those encoded by all 35 sequenced E. amylovora strains, representative strains of other Erwinia species, and the genome of the E. coli strain O157:H7 EDL933, which contains the greatest number of chromosomally encoded Hok family proteins reported (13, 36). We determined that the hok gene is of a single copy and chromosomally located in all E. amylovora strains examined. Except for one substitution (K36N) in E. amylovora MANB02-1, the deduced amino acid sequences of Hok proteins are identical in all 33 Spiraeoideae-infecting E. amylovora strains (E. amylovora strains are phylogenetically subdivided into strains that infect the Spiraeoideae plant family and those that infect Rubus spp. [37]). One amino acid substitution (V17I) is present in both of the Rubus-infecting E. amylovora strains examined, Ea644 and MR1 (Ea574) (Fig. S4). Phylogenetic analysis indicated that Hok proteins in E. amylovora are within the same clade as other plasmid-encoded Hok proteins and more distant from the chromosomally encoded Hok family proteins in E. coli O157:H7 EDL933 (Fig. 2C). Although chromosomally encoded Hok proteins were also predicted in other Erwinia species, i.e., Erwinia tracheiphila and Erwinia pyrifoliae, these Hok proteins were not members of the plasmid-encoded Hok clade (Fig. 2C). Thus, our phylogenetic analysis suggested that the chromosomal placement of E. amylovora Hok is unique among known members of its clade.

Growth arrest by hok and mok and reversal by sok.To evaluate whether hok in E. amylovora encodes a self-toxic protein, the coding sequence of hok was ectopically overexpressed under the control of the Ptac promoter on pOE-hok in strain Ea1189. The empty vector pEVS143 was used as a control. After induction with 1 mM isopropyl-β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG), cell survival of Ea1189/pOE-hok and Ea1189/pEVS143 was monitored in both Luria-Bertani (LB) medium (rich medium) and Hrp-inducing minimal medium (HrpMM) (low-nutrient medium). Overexpression of hok caused massive killing of the bacterial population in both media (Fig. 3A and Fig. S5). In LB broth, a >100-fold reduction of the bacterial population was observed after 1 h of hok induction. In HrpMM, the killing effect was less pronounced than that in LB broth, with a reduction of approximately 10-fold after 1 h of induction, which was likely due to the slower growth of bacteria in a low-nutrient medium. For optimal induction of Hok-mediated killing, LB medium was used for all subsequent overexpression experiments in this study.

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

Overexpression of Hok and its truncated derivatives in E. amylovora. (A) Induction of hok by 1 mM IPTG in cell cultures at an OD600 of 0.1 grown in liquid LB medium. CFU were measured hourly by serial dilution plating. (B) Toxicity of N-terminally or C-terminally truncated derivatives of Hok. Results represent the means, and error bars are the standard deviations (SD). Different letters or asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05 using Student’s t test). The assays were done three times, with similar results.

To evaluate whether the full length of Hok in E. amylovora is required to maintain its toxicity, we constructed plasmids that overexpressed truncated hok coding sequences lacking two, four, or six C-terminal residues or lacking one or three N-terminal residues. After 6 h of induction, constructs lacking two or four C-terminal residues (Ea1189/pOE-hok1:50 and Ea1189/pOE-hok1:48) elicited a level of cell death that was comparable or slightly decreased compared to that elicited by Ea1189/pOE-hok (Fig. 3B), respectively, suggesting a minor role of the four C-terminal amino acids in the toxicity of Hok. Truncation of six C-terminal residues abolished toxicity, however (Fig. 3B). Although both Ea1189/pOE-hok2:52 and Ea1189/pOE-hok4:52 elicited significant killing after induction, the effects were not as drastic as those of Ea1189/pOE-hok, suggesting a significant role of the N-terminal amino acids for the full toxicity of Hok.

To determine whether the predicted sRNA sok modulates the Hok-mediated cell-killing phenotype in E. amylovora Ea1189, we generated an overexpression construct of sok, denoted pOE-sok. Induction of sok expression in Ea1189 did not cause any notable growth defect or advantage compared with the empty vector (data not shown). Although the chromosomal location of sok does not directly overlap the coding sequence of hok, it shares 9 bp of reverse complementarity to mok, an upstream open reading frame of hok. Induction of mok was significantly cytotoxic in Ea1189/pOE-mok. By cooverexpressing sok with hok or mok, we found that sok significantly reversed mok-mediated killing but not hok-mediated killing (Fig. 4). The incomplete recovery of mok-mediated killing by sok was likely due to the aberrant balance of mok and sok under the ectopic overexpression conditions. Taken together, our data demonstrated that the chromosomally located hok-sok locus in E. amylovora functions as a TA system.

FIG 4
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4

Cooverexpression of hok or mok with the sok sRNA. Both the genes and the sRNA were induced by 1 mM IPTG for 6 h, and CFU were counted by serial dilution plating. Results represent the means, and error bars are the SD. Different letters above bars suggest significant differences (P < 0.05 using Student’s t test). The assay was done twice, with similar results.

Overexpression of hok causes membrane blebbing during division.To better understand the mechanism of hok-mediated toxicity, hok was overexpressed in E. amylovora Ea1189 for 1 h in LB medium, and the cells were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Compared with the empty vector control, the pOE-hok cells appeared to be unable to divide successfully, although septa were formed between the daughter cells (Fig. 5). We also observed leakage of cell contents, presumably DNA and protein, accompanied by the formation of one or two spherical “blebs” at the division points. The blebs appear similar to outer membrane vesicles (OMVs), spherical vesicles with periplasmic content with a diameter of approximately 20 to 250 nm commonly found in Gram-negative bacteria (38).

FIG 5
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 5

Overexpression of hok causes membrane blebbing during division. hok was induced for 1 h with 1 mM IPTG, and the cells were observed by SEM. (A) Ea1189/pEVS143 cells at the population level; (B) representative cell of Ea1189/pEVS143; (C) Ea1189/pOE-hok cells at the population level; (D) representative cell of Ea1189/pOE-hok. Blue arrows point to membrane blebs, and the yellow arrow points to leakage of cell contents.

The growth of E. amylovora is affected by the hok-sok locus.To further examine if the hok-sok locus participates in additional biological processes in E. amylovora, we generated a hok-sok locus deletion mutant, Ea1189Δhok-sok, and the mutant was complemented with a plasmid copy of the hok-sok locus with its native promoter region, Ea1189Δhok-sok(pJP-hok) (Fig. S6). We first compared the growth rates of the E. amylovora strains and observed that the Ea1189Δhok-sok mutant exhibited slower exponential-phase growth, although it reached a similar bacterial population size at the end of the incubation period compared with the WT parent (Fig. 6A). The doubling time of Ea1189Δhok-sok during exponential growth was 190 min, compared with 99 min for WT Ea1189. When the hok-sok locus was introduced in trans, the growth defect of the Ea1189Δhok-sok strain was largely restored, with a doubling time of 108 min for the complemented strain. These results suggest that the hok-sok locus plays important roles in regulating the growth of E. amylovora.

FIG 6
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 6

Effects of the hok-sok locus on bacterial growth (A) and morphology (B) of E. amylovora.

Mutation in the hok-sok locus affects the morphology of a subpopulation of E. amylovora cells.The micromorphology of WT Ea1189 and the Ea1189Δhok-sok mutant was observed by SEM when the bacterial population reached an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of 0.5 and an OD600 of 1.5, representing cells in exponential phase and stationary phase, respectively. In exponential phase, we observed elongated nondividing cells in cultures of Ea1189Δhok-sok but not in the WT (Fig. 6B). In stationary phase, long bacterial filaments were exclusively formed in populations of Ea1189Δhok-sok (Fig. 6B).

The hok-sok locus affects catalase activity.The deferred bacterial growth and formation of filaments in Ea1189Δhok-sok are reminiscent of the phenotypes observed in a catalase- and peroxidase-defective mutant (denoted Hpx−) of E. coli that grows poorly with aeration and forms bacterial filaments due to the inability to detoxify reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced during growth (39). We wondered whether deletion of the hok-sok locus resulted in defects in detoxifying the ROS that accumulated during growth in E. amylovora. We therefore examined the catalase activity of WT Ea1189 and Ea1189Δhok-sok. Our results suggested that the hok-sok locus contributed to the catalase activity in E. amylovora, as indicated by the reduced height of foam formed after supplementation with hydrogen peroxide in the hok-sok mutant (Fig. 7A and Fig. S7). The heights of foam were converted into catalase activity units, which were calculated based on a standard curve using a purified catalase enzyme of known amounts. Consistent with this result, Ea1189Δhok-sok also exhibited compromised survival in LB plates amended with hydrogen peroxide (Fig. 7B). Catalase activity in E. amylovora has recently been shown to be conferred by two genes, katA and katG, with katA playing the major role (40). To further explore the mechanism of how the hok-sok locus affects catalase activity in E. amylovora, we constructed transcriptional fusions of each of the katA and katG promoters to a green fluorescent protein reporter. We observed decreased transcription from the katA promoter but not the katG promoter in Ea1189Δhok-sok compared to WT Ea1189 (Fig. 7C). The decreased promoter activity of katA in Ea1189Δhok-sok was complemented through the introduction of the hok-sok locus in trans. Taken together, our results suggested that the hok-sok locus contributed to the catalase activity of E. amylovora through a direct or indirect effect on the transcription of the major catalase gene, katA.

FIG 7
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 7

The hok-sok locus affects the catalase activity of E. amylovora. (A) Catalase activities were quantified based on the height of the oxygen bubbles formed after hydrogen peroxide was added. Catalase activity units were calculated based on a calibration plot using defined units of catalase enzyme. (B) Hydrogen peroxide sensitivity assay. Serially diluted cultures were plated onto LB plates with or without the addition of 800 μM hydrogen peroxide. (C) Effects of the hok-sok locus on the promoter activities of the catalase genes katA and katG in E. amylovora. Promoter activities were quantified by measuring the relative fluorescence of green fluorescent protein normalized by the OD600 of the corresponding culture. Error bars indicate the standard deviations of the means; the asterisks above the bars suggest significant differences of the means (P < 0.05 using Student’s t test). ns, not significant.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we predicted the type I TA systems in plant-pathogenic bacteria and functionally characterized the biological roles associated with a chromosomally located hok-sok locus in E. amylovora Ea1189, including identifying effects on exponential growth, cell size, and catalase activity. Although the hok-sok locus was first characterized as a postsegregational killing system, the prevalence of this locus on the chromosome of all strains of E. amylovora with genomes available suggests that it is likely to confer important functional roles in this bacterium. The deduced amino acid sequence of Hok in E. amylovora was identical in 32 of 33 Spiraeoideae-infecting strains examined, and a V17I amino acid substitution was identified in the two Rubus-infecting strains. This could indicate possible host adaptation of the Hok protein in E. amylovora, which will be more evident with the availability of more genomes of Rubus-infecting E. amylovora strains. Based on our phylogenetic analysis, the chromosomally encoded Hok protein in E. amylovora is phylogenetically closest to the plasmid-encoded Hok proteins of other Enterobacteriaceae and distinct from the other chromosomally located Hok family proteins. The chromosomal location of an R1-like hok-sok type I TA system is currently unique to E. amylovora. Interestingly, all of the Hok-containing Erwinia species that we detected are either plant pathogens (E. amylovora, E. pyrifoliae, and E. tracheiphila) or insect pathogens (E. iniecta); Hok is missing in other species, such as E. tasmaniensis and E. billingiae, which are epiphytic to pome fruit trees and may be antagonistic to E. amylovora (41–44). This finding suggests that Hok family proteins may play important roles during infection of the pathogenic Erwinia spp. In agreement with this, a previous study indicated that hok-sok family loci were more prevalent in pathogenic E. coli strains than in nonpathogenic strains (36).

We confirmed that the hok-sok locus in E. amylovora Ea1189 encodes a type I TA system. In this system, the hok reading frame encodes a protein that is highly toxic to E. amylovora cells, the mok reading frame overlaps hok and is also highly toxic to E. amylovora cells, and the sok gene encodes an sRNA that counteracts hok-mediated toxicity through interaction with mok. These results agree with previous observations of this system in the plasmid R1 (9, 10). Our results suggested that sok was likely to act as a cis-encoded sRNA that interferes with mok and therefore blocks the translation of the downstream hok coding sequence. As determined by overexpression studies, the last four C-terminal amino acids played a minor role in the full toxicity of Hok, whereas the N-terminal amino acids were more essential for its toxicity. This agrees with our prediction of the transmembrane domain in Hok, where the N-terminal residues are anchored in the cytoplasm and the C-terminal residues are exposed outside the bacterial cell. However, a previous study showed that chemically synthesized truncated derivatives of Hok, Hok(1–28) and Hok(31–52), were toxic to E. coli when introduced into cells by electroporation (45). These phenotypic differences suggest that the core region for the toxicity of Hok in different bacteria may be different and that its toxicity may be affected by how it is delivered into the cells.

After induction of hok, we observed that the division of daughter cells was arrested and accompanied by the leakage of cell contents at the cell division point, presumably due to cell membrane damage. This agrees with the observation that induction of hok in E. coli causes a transparent-center appearance, called “ghost cells,” suggesting leakage of cell contents (7, 36). Interestingly, we also observed membrane blebbing at the division point after hok was induced. Membrane blebbing is a universal phenomenon in bacteria in response to disruption of the plasma membrane (46, 47) and suggests that E. amylovora Hok, like Hok homologs from other species, may function through membrane pore formation (16, 17). The rapid formation of a cell membrane near the division plane might make this location more vulnerable to the damage of Hok, consistent with this location as the site of visible blebbing. The bubbles protruding off the cell outer membrane appeared reminiscent of bacterial outer membrane vesicles (OMVs), round secreted vesicles that can form during normal bacterial growth or as a general envelope stress response (48–50). OMVs may transport nucleic acids, proteins, bacterial endotoxins, and virulence factors during infection (48, 49) or might eliminate harmful materials from the bacterial cell (50). It is not known whether pore-forming toxins such as Hok might help elicit the formation of OMVs.

While the overexpression of many TA system toxins elicits visible stress responses, we demonstrated here that deletion of hok-sok results in a lower rate of exponential growth, formation of filaments in a subpopulation of cells, decreased catalase activity, and reduced expression of the katA catalase-encoding gene. These findings suggest that the entire hok-sok module may be important for stress maintenance in E. amylovora. Filamentation is an anomalous form of bacterial growth caused by the longitudinal growth of cells without septum formation and cell division (51) and can be induced by DNA damage or other stresses that inhibit bacterial replication (52–56). Reactive oxygen species, including hydrogen peroxide, are common sources of DNA damage during bacterial stress (57, 58), and supplementation with hydrogen peroxide or deletion of catalase genes is a trigger of filamentation in some species (59, 60). During infection, E. amylovora must contend with ROS generated by the host defense response (40, 61–63). Regulation of bacterial catalase activity has been previously shown in the type II TA systems MqsR/MqsA and YafQ/DinJ in E. coli, where the antitoxins MqsA and DinJ both affect bacterial catalase by decreasing the level of RpoS, a positive regulator of katG and katE catalase genes (64–66). Catalase gene regulation may be important for a previously observed role of Hok not addressed in this study: ROS are thought to impair the entry of a cell into the dormant persister state, and ROS avoidance mechanisms have been linked to persister formation in some organisms (67). To the best of our knowledge, this study establishes a link between a type I TA system and regulation of catalase activity.

Infection and subsequent systemic spread of E. amylovora through tree hosts are accomplished via the coordinated expression of genes encoding a type III secretion system and biofilm development (68–71). During initial infection, E. amylovora cells trigger a defense response in host cells, during which they are exposed to elevated levels of ROS and to other plant defense compounds such as phytoalexins (63, 72). However, unlike in other bacterial pathogen-host interactions, where triggering plant defense typically results in a disruption of pathogenesis, E. amylovora cells are able to overcome the plant defense response and continue to invade the host (72). It is possible that the hok-sok locus contributes to pathogen survival in response to host defense compounds and also to pathogen growth inside the host, two traits which would distinguish pathogenic hok-sok-carrying Erwinia spp. from the nonpathogenic Erwinia spp. that do not carry this hok-sok locus. Further study will be needed to determine the potential mechanisms by which hok and/or sok may positively regulate catalase or other stress response factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bacterial strains, plasmids, and growth conditions.The bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study are listed in Table 1. Unless otherwise indicated, bacteria were routinely grown in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth or agar at 28°C. Media were supplemented with ampicillin (Ap) (100 μg/ml), chloramphenicol (Cm) (25 μg/ml), gentamicin (Gm) (10 μg/ml), or kanamycin (Km) (25 μg/ml), as necessary.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study

Prediction of known type I toxin-antitoxin systems and phylogenetic analysis of Hok family proteins.The amino acid sequences of toxins in all known type I toxin-antitoxin systems (listed in reference 15) were downloaded from the NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) (see Text S1 in the supplemental material), and they were used as the queries in taxon-specific TBLASTN searches against all available genomes of the genera Acidovorax, Burkholderia, Clavibacter, Dickeya, Erwinia, Pantoea, Pectobacterium, Pseudomonas, Ralstonia, Streptomyces, Xanthomonas, and Xylella in the Nucleotide Collection (nr/nt) database (cutoffs of an E value of ≤1e−4, identity of ≥40%, and coverage of ≥50%). The significant hits in representative strains were used for heat map construction using the Interactive Tree of Life Web server (https://itol.embl.de/). For phylogenetic analysis, the amino acid sequences of Hok family proteins were aligned by using MUSCLE (73), and MEGA7 software (74) was used to construct the phylogenetic tree with the maximum likelihood method for 1,000-replicate bootstrap analysis.

5′ RACE assay, gene mutagenesis, and complementation.The reference genome sequence of E. amylovora ATCC 49946 was obtained from the NCBI (accession no. FN666575) (32). Homologs of hok and sok in E. amylovora were identified by BLAST searches. The transcription start site of sok was determined using 5′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE) as previously described, with some modifications (75). Briefly, 10 μg of bacterial total RNA was extracted and treated with 10 U Cap-Clip acid pyrophosphatase (Epicentre, Madison, WI, USA), an alternative to tobacco acid pyrophosphatase, for 1 h. Control RNA was incubated without Cap-Clip acid pyrophosphatase. After ethanol precipitation, A4 5′ RNA linker and RNA ligase (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA) were added to the purified RNA, and this mixture was incubated at 17°C for 12 h. After purification, RNA was reverse transcribed using Applied Biosystems high-capacity cDNA reverse transcription kits (Life Technologies, Waltham, MA, USA). The 5′ transcription start site was determined using the RNA linker-specific primer JVO-0367 and the sok-specific primer sokR_GSP. The resultant PCR product from the Cap-Clip acid pyrophosphatase-treated sample was TOPO cloned into the pCR4-TOPO TA vector according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The resultant recombinant vector was Sanger sequenced to obtain the precise transcriptional start site of sok. The chromosomal hok-sok locus was knocked out routinely via the λ red recombinase system (69, 76). To complement the E. amylovora Δhok Δsok mutant, the mutant was transformed with pJP-hok, ligating the hok reading frame, 150 bp downstream of the reading frame, and 579 bp upstream of the reading frame into pBBR1MCS-5, which contained the hok reading frame, the mok reading frame, the sok small RNA (sRNA) gene, and their corresponding predicted native promoters (77).

DNA manipulations.The native hok coding DNA sequence (CDS) and the hok derivatives were PCR amplified with the primers listed in Table 2. The PCR products were digested with the corresponding restriction enzymes and cloned into pEVS143 to construct isopropyl-β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG)-inducible overexpression plasmids (69). To generate the overexpression construct of the sRNA sok, sok was PCR amplified (Table 2), digested with EcoRI and XbaI, and cloned into pHMB1 (78). For all the assays in this study, induction of a gene or sRNA was obtained by adding a final concentration of 1 mM IPTG to the medium. To construct pPROBE-NT::katA and pPROBE-NT::katG, a ligation-independent PCR cloning method was used (79). Briefly, katA, katG, and pPROBE-NT were PCR amplified with the primers listed in Table 2. The resultant PCR products of the DNA insert and plasmid backbone were mixed in a 1:1 ratio and transformed into E. coli DH5α or E. amylovora Ea1189 using the heat shock method.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Oligonucleotide primers used in this study

Growth curve and growth arrest assay.Cultures grown overnight were washed twice and diluted to an OD600 of 0.1 in fresh LB broth, and 200 μl of the resuspended culture was added to a 96-well plate (Corning Inc., Corning, NY, USA). The OD600 was measured every 30 min with periodic shaking using a Tecan spectrophotometer. The doubling time of bacteria was estimated according to the formula of Poisot et al. (80). To monitor the arrest of bacterial growth mediated by the hok gene and the hok derivatives, equilibrated cultures at an OD600 of 0.1 in LB broth or liquid hrp-inducing minimal medium (HrpMM) (81) were withdrawn every hour after IPTG supplementation; CFU were measured through serial dilution plating on LB plates with selective antibiotics.

Scanning electron microscopy.Cultures grown overnight were washed twice and diluted to an OD600 of 0.05 in 3 ml fresh LB broth in 14-ml polystyrene tubes (Corning Inc.). Cultures were incubated at 28°C with shaking (200 rpm) until the OD600 reached 0.5 or 1.5, representing cells in exponential phase or stationary phase, respectively. Cultures were harvested and washed twice with 0.5× phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Culture suspensions were fixed with an equal amount of 4% glutaraldehyde in a 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) at 4°C for 1.5 h. Samples were dehydrated using a series of ethanol gradations (25%, 50%, 75%, 95%, and 100%). Samples were coated with osmium in a Neoc-AT osmium chemical vapor deposition coater (Meiwafosis Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) and visualized with a JEOL 7500F (field emission emitter) scanning electron microscope (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).

Catalase assay and hydrogen peroxide sensitivity assay.The catalase assay was performed according to a previously described method (82), with some modifications. Briefly, cultures grown overnight were washed and resuspended in 0.5× PBS buffer (OD600 of 1.0), after which 200 μl of the cells was thoroughly mixed with 100 μl 1% Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and a 100-μl hydrogen peroxide solution (30% [wt/wt] in H2O in 14-ml polystyrene tubes [17-mm diameter by 100-mm height; Corning Inc.]). The mixtures were incubated at 22°C for 5 min. The final heights of the foam formed by O2 were measured, and catalase activity units were calculated by comparison to a standard curve of purified catalase (10,000 U/mg [1 U decomposes 1 μmol of hydrogen peroxide per min at pH 7.0 at 25°C]; Sigma-Aldrich). To measure the sensitivity of bacterial cells to hydrogen peroxide, cultures grown overnight were adjusted to an OD600 of 1.0, and 10-μl samples of appropriate serial dilutions were drop plated onto LB plates with or without the addition of hydrogen peroxide. For hydrogen peroxide-supplemented plates, autoclaved LB agar was cooled to 56°C, and 800 μM hydrogen peroxide was added immediately before medium was poured. Poured plates were dried in a fume hood for an hour before use. In our preliminary experiments, no colonies were formed in the E. amylovora Δhok Δsok mutant when >1 mM hydrogen peroxide was supplemented in the medium. Hydrogen peroxide at 800 μM was therefore used for the best display of the results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program grant no. 2015-67013-23068 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and by Michigan State University AgBioResearch.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 27 March 2019.
    • Accepted 8 May 2019.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 17 May 2019.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00724-19.

  • Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Page R,
    2. Peti W
    . 2016. Toxin-antitoxin systems in bacterial growth arrest and persistence. Nat Chem Biol 12:208–214. doi:10.1038/nchembio.2044.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Unterholzner SJ,
    2. Poppenberger B,
    3. Rozhon W
    . 2013. Toxin-antitoxin systems: biology, identification, and application. Mob Genet Elements 3:e26219. doi:10.4161/mge.26219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Goeders N,
    2. Van Melderen L
    . 2014. Toxin-antitoxin systems as multilevel interaction systems. Toxins (Basel) 6:304–324. doi:10.3390/toxins6010304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Harms A,
    2. Brodersen DE,
    3. Mitarai N,
    4. Gerdes K
    . 2018. Toxins, targets, and triggers: an overview of toxin-antitoxin biology. Mol Cell 70:768–784. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2018.01.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Leplae R,
    2. Geeraerts D,
    3. Hallez R,
    4. Guglielmini J,
    5. Drèze P,
    6. Van Melderen L
    . 2011. Diversity of bacterial type II toxin-antitoxin systems: a comprehensive search and functional analysis of novel families. Nucleic Acids Res 39:5513–5525. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr131.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Van Melderen L
    . 2010. Toxin-antitoxin systems: why so many, what for? Curr Opin Microbiol 13:781–785. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2010.10.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gerdes K,
    2. Rasmussen PB,
    3. Molin S
    . 1986. Unique type of plasmid maintenance function: postsegregational killing of plasmid-free cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 83:3116–3120. doi:10.1073/pnas.83.10.3116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Loh SM,
    2. Cram DS,
    3. Skurray RA
    . 1988. Nucleotide sequence and transcriptional analysis of a third function (Flm) involved in F-plasmid maintenance. Gene 66:259–268. doi:10.1016/0378-1119(88)90362-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Gerdes K,
    2. Bech FW,
    3. Jørgensen ST,
    4. Løbner-Olesen A,
    5. Rasmussen PB,
    6. Atlung T,
    7. Boe L,
    8. Karlstrom O,
    9. Molin S,
    10. von Meyenburg K
    . 1986. Mechanism of postsegregational killing by the hok gene product of the parB system of plasmid R1 and its homology with the relF gene product of the E. coli relB operon. EMBO J 5:2023–2029. doi:10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04459.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Thisted T,
    2. Gerdes K
    . 1992. Mechanism of post-segregational killing by the hok/sok system of plasmid R1. Sok antisense RNA regulates hok gene expression indirectly through the overlapping mok gene. J Mol Biol 223:41–54. doi:10.1016/0022-2836(92)90714-U.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Franch T,
    2. Gultyaev AP,
    3. Gerdes K
    . 1997. Programmed cell death by hok/sok of plasmid R1: processing at the hok mRNA 3′-end triggers structural rearrangements that allow translation and antisense RNA binding. J Mol Biol 273:38–51. doi:10.1006/jmbi.1997.1294.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Pedersen K,
    2. Gerdes K
    . 1999. Multiple hok genes on the chromosome of Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 32:1090–1102. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.1999.01431.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Fozo EM,
    2. Makarova KS,
    3. Shabalina SA,
    4. Yutin N,
    5. Koonin EV,
    6. Storz G
    . 2010. Abundance of type I toxin-antitoxin systems in bacteria: searches for new candidates and discovery of novel families. Nucleic Acids Res 38:3743–3759. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq054.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Poulsen LK,
    2. Larsen NW,
    3. Molin S,
    4. Andersson P
    . 1989. A family of genes encoding a cell-killing function may be conserved in all gram-negative bacteria. Mol Microbiol 3:1463–1472. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.1989.tb00131.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Brielle R,
    2. Pinel-Marie ML,
    3. Felden B
    . 2016. Linking bacterial type I toxins with their actions. Curr Opin Microbiol 30:114–121. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2016.01.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gurnev PA,
    2. Ortenberg R,
    3. Dörr T,
    4. Lewis K,
    5. Bezrukov SM
    . 2012. Persister-promoting bacterial toxin TisB produces anion-selective pores in planar lipid bilayers. FEBS Lett 586:2529–2534. doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2012.06.021.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Wilmaerts D,
    2. Bayoumi M,
    3. Dewachter L,
    4. Knapen W,
    5. Mika JT,
    6. Hofkens J,
    7. Dedecker P,
    8. Maglia G,
    9. Verstraeten N,
    10. Michiels J
    . 2018. The persistence-inducing toxin HokB forms dynamic pores that cause ATP leakage. mBio 9:e00744-18. doi:10.1128/mBio.00744-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Verstraeten N,
    2. Knapen WJ,
    3. Kint CI,
    4. Liebens V,
    5. Van den Bergh B,
    6. Dewachter L,
    7. Michiels JE,
    8. Fu Q,
    9. David CC,
    10. Fierro AC,
    11. Marchal K,
    12. Beirlant J,
    13. Versées W,
    14. Hofkens J,
    15. Jansen M,
    16. Fauvart M,
    17. Michiels J
    . 2015. Obg and membrane depolarization are part of a microbial bet-hedging strategy that leads to antibiotic tolerance. Mol Cell 59:9–21. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2015.05.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Dörr T,
    2. Vulić M,
    3. Lewis K
    . 2010. Ciprofloxacin causes persister formation by inducing the TisB toxin in Escherichia coli. PLoS Biol 8:e1000317. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000317.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pecota DC,
    2. Wood TK
    . 1996. Exclusion of T4 phage by the hok/sok killer locus from plasmid R1. J Bacteriol 178:2044–2050. doi:10.1128/jb.178.7.2044-2050.1996.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Vogel J,
    2. Argaman L,
    3. Wagner EG,
    4. Altuvia S
    . 2004. The small RNA IstR inhibits synthesis of an SOS-induced toxic peptide. Curr Biol 14:2271–2276. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.12.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kawano M,
    2. Aravind L,
    3. Storz G
    . 2007. An antisense RNA controls synthesis of an SOS-induced toxin evolved from an antitoxin. Mol Microbiol 64:738–754. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05688.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    1. Weel-Sneve R,
    2. Kristiansen KI,
    3. Odsbu I,
    4. Dalhus B,
    5. Booth J,
    6. Rognes T,
    7. Skarstad K,
    8. Bjørås M
    . 2013. Single transmembrane peptide DinQ modulates membrane-dependent activities. PLoS Genet 9:e1003260. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003260.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Fernández De Henestrosa AR,
    2. Ogi T,
    3. Aoyagi S,
    4. Chafin D,
    5. Hayes JJ,
    6. Ohmori H,
    7. Woodgate R
    . 2000. Identification of additional genes belonging to the LexA regulon in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 35:1560–1572.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Zhao B,
    2. Ardales EY,
    3. Raymundo A,
    4. Bai J,
    5. Trick HN,
    6. Leach JE,
    7. Hulbert SH
    . 2004. The avrRxo1 gene from the rice pathogen Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola confers a nonhost defense reaction on maize with resistance gene Rxo1. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 17:771–779. doi:10.1094/MPMI.2004.17.7.771.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Triplett LR,
    2. Shidore T,
    3. Long J,
    4. Miao J,
    5. Wu S,
    6. Han Q,
    7. Zhou C,
    8. Ishihara H,
    9. Li J,
    10. Zhao B,
    11. Leach JE
    . 2016. AvrRxo1 is a bifunctional type III secreted effector and toxin-antitoxin system component with homologs in diverse environmental contexts. PLoS One 11:e0158856. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158856.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Merfa MV,
    2. Niza B,
    3. Takita MA,
    4. De Souza AA
    . 2016. The MqsRA toxin-antitoxin system from Xylella fastidiosa plays a key role in bacterial fitness, pathogenicity, and persister cell formation. Front Microbiol 7:904. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00904.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Shidore T,
    2. Triplett LR
    . 2017. Toxin-antitoxin systems: implications for plant disease. Annu Rev Phytopathol 55:161–179. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-080516-035559.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Burbank LP,
    2. Stenger DC
    . 2017. The DinJ/RelE toxin-antitoxin system suppresses bacterial proliferation and virulence of Xylella fastidiosa in grapevine. Phytopathology 107:388–394. doi:10.1094/PHYTO-10-16-0374-R.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    1. Shavit R,
    2. Lebendiker M,
    3. Pasternak Z,
    4. Burdman S,
    5. Helman Y
    . 2015. The vapB-vapC operon of Acidovorax citrulli functions as a bona-fide toxin-antitoxin module. Front Microbiol 6:1499. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.01499.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Mansfield J,
    2. Genin S,
    3. Magori S,
    4. Citovsky V,
    5. Sriariyanum M,
    6. Ronald P,
    7. Dow M,
    8. Verdier V,
    9. Beer SV,
    10. Machado MA,
    11. Toth I,
    12. Salmond G,
    13. Foster GD
    . 2012. Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology. Mol Plant Pathol 13:614–629. doi:10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00804.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. Sebaihia M,
    2. Bocsanczy AM,
    3. Biehl BS,
    4. Quail MA,
    5. Perna NT,
    6. Glasner JD,
    7. DeClerck GA,
    8. Cartinhour S,
    9. Schneider DJ,
    10. Bentley SD,
    11. Parkhill J,
    12. Beer SV
    . 2010. Complete genome sequence of the plant pathogen Erwinia amylovora strain ATCC 49946. J Bacteriol 192:2020–2021. doi:10.1128/JB.00022-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Gerdes K,
    2. Gultyaev AP,
    3. Franch T,
    4. Pedersen K,
    5. Mikkelsen ND
    . 1997. Antisense RNA-regulated programmed cell death. Annu Rev Genet 31:1–31. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.31.1.1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Siguier P,
    2. Perochon J,
    3. Lestrade L,
    4. Mahillon J,
    5. Chandler M
    . 2006. ISfinder: the reference centre for bacterial insertion sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 34:D32–D36. doi:10.1093/nar/gkj014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    1. Krogh A,
    2. Larsson B,
    3. von Heijne G,
    4. Sonnhammer EL
    . 2001. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol 305:567–580. doi:10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Faridani OR,
    2. Nikravesh A,
    3. Pandey DP,
    4. Gerdes K,
    5. Good L
    . 2006. Competitive inhibition of natural antisense Sok-RNA interactions activates Hok-mediated cell killing in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res 34:5915–5922. doi:10.1093/nar/gkl750.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    1. Mann RA,
    2. Smits TH,
    3. Bühlmann A,
    4. Blom J,
    5. Goesmann A,
    6. Frey JE,
    7. Plummer KM,
    8. Beer SV,
    9. Luck J,
    10. Duffy B,
    11. Rodoni B
    . 2013. Comparative genomics of 12 strains of Erwinia amylovora identifies a pan-genome with a large conserved core. PLoS One 8:e55644. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055644.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Schwechheimer C,
    2. Kuehn MJ
    . 2015. Outer-membrane vesicles from Gram-negative bacteria: biogenesis and functions. Nat Rev Microbiol 13:605–619. doi:10.1038/nrmicro3525.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Park S,
    2. You X,
    3. Imlay JA
    . 2005. Substantial DNA damage from submicromolar intracellular hydrogen peroxide detected in Hpx− mutants of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:9317–9322. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502051102.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Santander RD,
    2. Figàs-Segura À,
    3. Biosca EG
    . 2018. Erwinia amylovora catalases KatA and KatG are virulence factors and delay the starvation-induced viable but non-culturable (VBNC) response. Mol Plant Pathol 19:922–934. doi:10.1111/mpp.12577.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    1. Jakovljevic V,
    2. Jock S,
    3. Du Z,
    4. Geider K
    . 2008. Hypersensitive response and acyl-homoserine lactone production of the fire blight antagonists Erwinia tasmaniensis and Erwinia billingiae. Microb Biotechnol 1:416–424. doi:10.1111/j.1751-7915.2008.00043.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Kube M,
    2. Migdoll AM,
    3. Gehring I,
    4. Heitmann K,
    5. Mayer Y,
    6. Kuhl H,
    7. Knaust F,
    8. Geider K,
    9. Reinhardt R
    . 2010. Genome comparison of the epiphytic bacteria Erwinia billingiae and E. tasmaniensis with the pear pathogen E. pyrifoliae. BMC Genomics 11:393. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-393.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Geider K,
    2. Auling G,
    3. Du Z,
    4. Jakovljevic V,
    5. Jock S,
    6. Völksch B
    . 2006. Erwinia tasmaniensis sp. nov., a non-phytopathogenic bacterium from apple and pear trees. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 56:2937–2943. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64032-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Llop P
    . 2015. Genetic islands in pome fruit pathogenic and non-pathogenic Erwinia species and related plasmids. Front Microbiol 6:874. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00874.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    1. Pecota DC,
    2. Osapay G,
    3. Selsted ME,
    4. Wood TK
    . 2003. Antimicrobial properties of the Escherichia coli R1 plasmid host killing peptide. J Biotechnol 100:1–12. doi:10.1016/S0168-1656(02)00240-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    1. Babiychuk EB,
    2. Monastyrskaya K,
    3. Potez S,
    4. Draeger A
    . 2011. Blebbing confers resistance against cell lysis. Cell Death Differ 18:80–89. doi:10.1038/cdd.2010.81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Alves CS,
    2. Melo MN,
    3. Franquelim HG,
    4. Ferre R,
    5. Planas M,
    6. Feliu L,
    7. Bardají E,
    8. Kowalczyk W,
    9. Andreu D,
    10. Santos NC,
    11. Fernandes MX,
    12. Castanho MA
    . 2010. Escherichia coli cell surface perturbation and disruption induced by antimicrobial peptides BP100 and PepR. J Biol Chem 285:27536–27544. doi:10.1074/jbc.M110.130955.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Mayrand D,
    2. Grenier D
    . 1989. Biological activities of outer membrane vesicles. Can J Microbiol 35:607–613. doi:10.1139/m89-097.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.↵
    1. Beveridge TJ
    . 1999. Structures of gram-negative cell walls and their derived membrane vesicles. J Bacteriol 181:4725–4733.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. McBroom AJ,
    2. Kuehn MJ
    . 2007. Release of outer membrane vesicles by Gram-negative bacteria is a novel envelope stress response. Mol Microbiol 63:545–558. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05522.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    1. Yang DC,
    2. Blair KM,
    3. Salama NR
    . 2016. Staying in shape: the impact of cell shape on bacterial survival in diverse environments. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 80:187–203. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00031-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Bos J,
    2. Yakhnina AA,
    3. Gitai Z
    . 2012. BapE DNA endonuclease induces an apoptotic-like response to DNA damage in Caulobacter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:18096–18101. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213332109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Justice SS,
    2. Hunstad DA,
    3. Seed PC,
    4. Hultgren SJ
    . 2006. Filamentation by Escherichia coli subverts innate defenses during urinary tract infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:19884–19889. doi:10.1073/pnas.0606329104.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Stackhouse RR,
    2. Faith NG,
    3. Kaspar CW,
    4. Czuprynski CJ,
    5. Wong AC
    . 2012. Survival and virulence of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis filaments induced by reduced water activity. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:2213–2220. doi:10.1128/AEM.06774-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Miller C,
    2. Thomsen LE,
    3. Gaggero C,
    4. Mosseri R,
    5. Ingmer H,
    6. Cohen SN
    . 2004. SOS response induction by beta-lactams and bacterial defense against antibiotic lethality. Science 305:1629–1631. doi:10.1126/science.1101630.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Chauhan A,
    2. Madiraju MV,
    3. Fol M,
    4. Lofton H,
    5. Maloney E,
    6. Reynolds R,
    7. Rajagopalan M
    . 2006. Mycobacterium tuberculosis cells growing in macrophages are filamentous and deficient in FtsZ rings. J Bacteriol 188:1856–1865. doi:10.1128/JB.188.5.1856-1865.2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Mishra S,
    2. Imlay J
    . 2012. Why do bacteria use so many enzymes to scavenge hydrogen peroxide? Arch Biochem Biophys 525:145–160. doi:10.1016/j.abb.2012.04.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.↵
    1. Imlay JA,
    2. Linn S
    . 1988. DNA damage and oxygen radical toxicity. Science 240:1302–1309. doi:10.1126/science.3287616.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    1. Imlay JA,
    2. Linn S
    . 1986. Bimodal pattern of killing of DNA-repair-defective or anoxically grown Escherichia coli by hydrogen peroxide. J Bacteriol 166:519–527. doi:10.1128/jb.166.2.519-527.1986.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Brandi G,
    2. Fiorani M,
    3. Pierotti C,
    4. Albano A,
    5. Cattabeni F,
    6. Cantoni O
    . 1989. Morphological changes in Escherichia coli cells exposed to low or high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide. Microbiol Immunol 33:991–1000. doi:10.1111/j.1348-0421.1989.tb03157.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Abdollahi H,
    2. Ghahremani Z,
    3. Erfaninia K,
    4. Mehrabi R
    . 2015. Role of electron transport chain of chloroplasts in oxidative burst of interaction between Erwinia amylovora and host cells. Photosynth Res 124:231–242. doi:10.1007/s11120-015-0127-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    1. Venisse JS,
    2. Gullner G,
    3. Brisset MN
    . 2001. Evidence for the involvement of an oxidative stress in the initiation of infection of pear by Erwinia amylovora. Plant Physiol 125:2164–2172. doi:10.1104/pp.125.4.2164.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Venisse JS,
    2. Barny MA,
    3. Paulin JP,
    4. Brisset MN
    . 2003. Involvement of three pathogenicity factors of Erwinia amylovora in the oxidative stress associated with compatible interaction in pear. FEBS Lett 537:198–202. doi:10.1016/S0014-5793(03)00123-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. 64.↵
    1. Lacour S,
    2. Landini P
    . 2004. σS-dependent gene expression at the onset of stationary phase in Escherichia coli: function of σS-dependent genes and identification of their promoter sequences. J Bacteriol 186:7186–7195. doi:10.1128/JB.186.21.7186-7195.2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Hu Y,
    2. Benedik MJ,
    3. Wood TK
    . 2012. Antitoxin DinJ influences the general stress response through transcript stabilizer CspE. Environ Microbiol 14:669–679. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02618.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. 66.↵
    1. Wang X,
    2. Kim Y,
    3. Hong SH,
    4. Ma Q,
    5. Brown BL,
    6. Pu M,
    7. Tarone AM,
    8. Benedik MJ,
    9. Peti W,
    10. Page R,
    11. Wood TK
    . 2011. Antitoxin MqsA helps mediate the bacterial general stress response. Nat Chem Biol 7:359–366. doi:10.1038/nchembio.560.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.↵
    1. Prax M,
    2. Bertram R
    . 2014. Metabolic aspects of bacterial persisters. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 4:148. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2014.00148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Malnoy M,
    2. Martens S,
    3. Norelli JL,
    4. Barny MA,
    5. Sundin GW,
    6. Smits TH,
    7. Duffy B
    . 2012. Fire blight: applied genomic insights of the pathogen and host. Annu Rev Phytopathol 50:475–494. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-081211-172931.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Edmunds AC,
    2. Castiblanco LF,
    3. Sundin GW,
    4. Waters CM
    . 2013. Cyclic di-GMP modulates the disease progression of Erwinia amylovora. J Bacteriol 195:2155–2165. doi:10.1128/JB.02068-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    1. Zeng Q,
    2. McNally RR,
    3. Sundin GW
    . 2013. Global small RNA chaperone Hfq and regulatory small RNAs are important virulence regulators in Erwinia amylovora. J Bacteriol 195:1706–1717. doi:10.1128/JB.02056-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Kharadi RR,
    2. Castiblanco LF,
    3. Waters CM,
    4. Sundin GW
    . 2019. Phosphodiesterase genes regulate amylovoran production, biofilm formation, and virulence in Erwinia amylovora. Appl Environ Microbiol 85:e02233-18. doi:10.1128/AEM.02233-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    1. Venisse JS,
    2. Malnoy M,
    3. Faize M,
    4. Paulin JP,
    5. Brisset MN
    . 2002. Modulation of defense responses of Malus spp. during compatible and incompatible interactions with Erwinia amylovora. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 15:1204–1212. doi:10.1094/MPMI.2002.15.12.1204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  73. 73.↵
    1. Edgar RC
    . 2004. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32:1792–1797. doi:10.1093/nar/gkh340.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. 74.↵
    1. Kumar S,
    2. Stecher G,
    3. Tamura K
    . 2016. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol 33:1870–1874. doi:10.1093/molbev/msw054.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Urban JH,
    2. Vogel J
    . 2007. Translational control and target recognition by Escherichia coli small RNAs in vivo. Nucleic Acids Res 35:1018–1037. doi:10.1093/nar/gkl1040.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  76. 76.↵
    1. Datsenko KA,
    2. Wanner BL
    . 2000. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:6640–6645. doi:10.1073/pnas.120163297.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    1. Kovach ME,
    2. Elzer PH,
    3. Hill DS,
    4. Robertson GT,
    5. Farris MA,
    6. Roop RM, II,
    7. Peterson KM
    . 1995. Four new derivatives of the broad-host-range cloning vector pBBR1MCS, carrying different antibiotic-resistance cassettes. Gene 166:175–176. doi:10.1016/0378-1119(95)00584-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. 78.↵
    1. Bak G,
    2. Lee J,
    3. Suk S,
    4. Kim D,
    5. Young Lee J,
    6. Kim KS,
    7. Choi BS,
    8. Lee Y
    . 2015. Identification of novel sRNAs involved in biofilm formation, motility, and fimbriae formation in Escherichia coli. Sci Rep 5:15287. doi:10.1038/srep15287.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. 79.↵
    1. Li C,
    2. Wen A,
    3. Shen B,
    4. Lu J,
    5. Huang Y,
    6. Chang Y
    . 2011. FastCloning: a highly simplified, purification-free, sequence- and ligation-independent PCR cloning method. BMC Biotechnol 11:92. doi:10.1186/1472-6750-11-92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Poisot T,
    2. Bell T,
    3. Martinez E,
    4. Gougat-Barbera C,
    5. Hochberg ME
    . 2012. Terminal investment induced by a bacteriophage in a rhizosphere bacterium. F1000Res 1:21. doi:10.12688/f1000research.1-21.v1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. 81.↵
    1. Huynh TV,
    2. Dahlbeck D,
    3. Staskawicz BJ
    . 1989. Bacterial blight of soybean: regulation of a pathogen gene determining host cultivar specificity. Science 245:1374–1377. doi:10.1126/science.2781284.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.↵
    1. Iwase T,
    2. Tajima A,
    3. Sugimoto S,
    4. Okuda K,
    5. Hironaka I,
    6. Kamata Y,
    7. Takada K,
    8. Mizunoe Y
    . 2013. A simple assay for measuring catalase activity: a visual approach. Sci Rep 3:3081. doi:10.1038/srep03081.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.
    1. Dunn AK,
    2. Millikan DS,
    3. Adin DM,
    4. Bose JL,
    5. Stabb EV
    . 2006. New rfp- and pES213-derived tools for analyzing symbiotic Vibrio fischeri reveal patterns of infection and lux expression in situ. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:802–810. doi:10.1128/AEM.72.1.802-810.2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.
    1. Miller WG,
    2. Leveau JH,
    3. Lindow SE
    . 2000. Improved gfp and inaZ broad-host-range promoter-probe vectors. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 13:1243–1250. doi:10.1094/MPMI.2000.13.11.1243.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Chromosomally Encoded hok-sok Toxin-Antitoxin System in the Fire Blight Pathogen Erwinia amylovora: Identification and Functional Characterization
Jingyu Peng, Lindsay R. Triplett, Jeffrey K. Schachterle, George W. Sundin
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jul 2019, 85 (15) e00724-19; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00724-19

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Chromosomally Encoded hok-sok Toxin-Antitoxin System in the Fire Blight Pathogen Erwinia amylovora: Identification and Functional Characterization
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Chromosomally Encoded hok-sok Toxin-Antitoxin System in the Fire Blight Pathogen Erwinia amylovora: Identification and Functional Characterization
Jingyu Peng, Lindsay R. Triplett, Jeffrey K. Schachterle, George W. Sundin
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jul 2019, 85 (15) e00724-19; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00724-19
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

catalase
fire blight
hok-sok
type I TA systems

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336