2016
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-016-2644-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Insights on the virulence of swine respiratory tract mycoplasmas through genome-scale metabolic modeling

Abstract: BackgroundThe respiratory tract of swine is colonized by several bacteria among which are three Mycoplasma species: Mycoplasma flocculare, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Mycoplasma hyorhinis. While colonization by M. flocculare is virtually asymptomatic, M. hyopneumoniae is the causative agent of enzootic pneumonia and M. hyorhinis is present in cases of pneumonia, polyserositis and arthritis. The genomic resemblance among these three Mycoplasma species combined with their different levels of pathogenicity is an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
63
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
5
63
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We identified a pan‐domainome size of 866 protein domains, of which 846 (98%) were present in all strains (core domainome). We conclude from this comparative analysis that the metabolic capabilities of M. hyopneumoniae strains were predicted to be highly similar, as was also found by Ferrarini et al (Ferrarini et al, ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We identified a pan‐domainome size of 866 protein domains, of which 846 (98%) were present in all strains (core domainome). We conclude from this comparative analysis that the metabolic capabilities of M. hyopneumoniae strains were predicted to be highly similar, as was also found by Ferrarini et al (Ferrarini et al, ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Haemophilus influenzae (Schilling and Palsson, ) was the first bacterium for which a CBM was made and since then >400 genome‐scale metabolic reconstructions have been made available for the scientific community via the Biomodels database (Juty et al, ). Considerable efforts have been made to model various mycoplasma species: M. genitalium (Suthers et al, ), M. gallisepticum (Bautista et al, ), M. pneumoniae (Wodke et al, ), and M. hyopneumoniae and other swine pathogens (Ferrarini et al, ). These models show in general that the inferred metabolic networks are small compared to other bacteria, linear and have a low redundancy (Yus et al, ), which is expected in bacteria with a minimal genome.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For M. hyopneumoniae , Ferrarini et al. () reconstructed a metabolic model based on its genome. They postulated an ability of M. hyopneumoniae to use glycerol as a carbon source, thereby enabling the production of hydrogen peroxide.…”
Section: Pathogenicitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In line with that, it was recently demonstrated that pathogenic strains of M. hyopneumoniae were able to produce hydrogen peroxide from glycerol metabolism, but that the non-pathogenic strain J and M. flocculare were not [11]. M. hyopneumoniae uptakes and metabolizes glycerol, while M. flocculare does not, failing to produce cytotoxic levels of hydrogen peroxide, which can be explained by the absence, in the M. flocculare genome, of the glpO gene, related to glycerol metabolism and hydrogen peroxide production [12]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, previous comparative phylogenetic and phylogenomic studies provided evidences of the close relationship of M. hyopneumoniae and M. flocculare [79], which share most of the known virulence-related genes [10]. The differences between M. hyopneumoniae and M. flocculare include the absence, in M. flocculare , of the glpO gene, related to M. hyopneumoniae hydrogen peroxide generation and cytotoxicity [11,12], and differential domains between orthologs from the P97 family of adhesins and from other surface proteins [13]. However, 90% of M. flocculare predicted surface proteins are shared with M. hyopneumoniae [9], and the observed genomic differences between M. hyopneumoniae strains, and between M. hyopneumoniae and M. flocculare so far do not fully explain their differential phenotypes of virulence/pathogenicity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%