BackgroundThe formation of a disulfide bond between two cysteine residues stabilizes protein structure. Although we now have a good understanding of the Escherichia coli disulfide formation system, the machineries at work in other bacteria, including pathogens, are poorly characterized. Thus, the objective of this work was to improve our understanding of the disulfide formation machinery of Helicobacter pylori, a leading cause of ulcers and a risk factor for stomach cancer worldwide.Methods and ResultsThe protein HP0231 from H. pylori, a structural counterpart of E. coli DsbG, is the focus of this research. Its function was clarified by using a combination of biochemical, microbiological and genetic approaches. In particular, we determined the biochemical properties of HP0231 as well as its redox state in H. pylori cells.ConclusionAltogether our results show that HP0231 is an oxidoreductase that catalyzes disulfide bond formation in the periplasm. We propose to call it HpDsbA.

Microbial pathogens have evolved sophisticated mechanisms for evasion of host innate and adaptive immunities. PFam54 is the largest paralogous gene family in the genomes of Borrelia burgdorferi, the Lyme disease bacterium. One member of PFam54, the complement-regulator acquiring surface proteins 1 (BbCRASP-1), is able to abort the alternative pathway of complement activation via binding human complement regulator factor H (FH). The gene coding for BbCRASP-1 exists in a tandem array of PFam54 genes in the B. burgdorferi genome, a result apparently of repeated gene duplications. To help elucidate the functions of the large number of PFam54 genes, we performed §Corresponding

The naked mole‐rat (Heterocephalus glaber) has fascinated zoologists for at least half a century. It has also generated considerable biomedical interest not only because of its extraordinary longevity, but also because of unusual protective features (e.g. its tolerance of variable oxygen availability), which may be pertinent to several human disease states, including ischemia/reperfusion injury and neurodegeneration. A recent article entitled ‘Surprisingly long survival of premature conclusions about naked mole‐rat biology’ described 28 ‘myths’ which, those authors claimed, are a ‘perpetuation of beautiful, but falsified, hypotheses’ and impede our understanding of this enigmatic mammal. Here, we re‐examine each of these ‘myths’ based on evidence published in the scientific literature. Following Braude et al., we argue that these ‘myths’ fall into four main categories: (i) ‘myths’ that would be better described as oversimplifications, some of which persist solely in the popular press; (ii) ‘myths’ that are based on incomplete understanding, where more evidence is clearly needed; (iii) ‘myths’ where the accumulation of evidence over the years has led to a revision in interpretation, but where there is no significant disagreement among scientists currently working in the field; (iv) ‘myths’ where there is a genuine difference in opinion among active researchers, based on alternative interpretations of the available evidence. The term ‘myth’ is particularly inappropriate when applied to competing, evidence‐based hypotheses, which form part of the normal evolution of scientific knowledge. Here, we provide a comprehensive critical review of naked mole‐rat biology and attempt to clarify some of these misconceptions.