This week’s paper reports on the characterisation of a gene, pgp1, that is important for the helical shape of the bacterium Campylobacter jejuni.
The authors first identified the gene by screening for hypofluorescent C. jejuni mutants with calcofluor white (which reacts with certain carbohydrate linkages and fluoresces under UV light). (The researchers in previous work had shown that hypofluorescent mutants “exhibit changes in pathogenesis, virulence, fundamental and/or stress survival phenotypes”). They then investigated the functional consequences of loss of this gene for C. jejuni by creating a non-polar pgp1 targeted deletion strain .
Having identified that the pgp1 gene is required for the helical shape of C. jejuni and having identified that it plays a role in motility and biofilm formation they went on to characterise the muropeptide content of the C. jejuni strain and determine how this is altered by loss of pgp1 function.
Then they looked at the effect the pgp1 gene had on how C. jejuni interacts with host cells, finding that the deletion strain showed a decreased ability to colonise one day old chicks but that in vitro there was little difference between the deletion strain and the wild type strain when it came to invasion and intracellular survival in epithelial and macrophage cell line. Finally, they showed that the deletion strain did produce an increased epithelial cell Nod1 response compared to the wild type and increased IL-8 production by epithelial cells.
In the discussion the authors state that “identification and characterisation of pgp1 provides a critical first step in understanding how shape and PG modifications impact C. jejuni pathogenesis“. They conclude by saying that the deletion strain “will be a valuable tool to continue to study the effects of the loss of C. jejuni helical shape on its biology and pathogenesis“.
Discussion points
These are points/questions that occurred to me as I read the paper. If you have anything else you think would be interesting to discuss please post in the comments below.
- Was the paper written clearly and logically with the results informing the discussion?
- Much of this paper is by necessity descriptive, as the authors discuss how they characterised the gene. Once they identified its role in C. jejuni biology was there a clear hypothesis for its role in C. jejuni pathogenesis?
- Have the authors shown sufficiently that it is pgp1‘s role in helical shape formation that is directly affecting C. jejuni‘s pathogenesis?
- Are there any other experiments you would like to have seen done?

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Connor
Here’s my thoughts on this paper written down. Easier to record thinking than tweeting
http://ruleof6ix.fieldofscience.com/2012/05/microtwjc-1-bacterial-cell-shape-and.html
May 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM
zoonotica
I have a few questions – they are not necessarily discussion points, more things I don’t understand and I’m hoping one of you out there does:
it looks like mNod1 receptor (which preferentially recognises tetrapeptides but will recognise tripeptides) activation is increased because the number of tripeptides is increased in the pgp1 mutant – why doesn’t hNod1 receptor activation increase (as that preferentially recognises tripeptides)?
The paper states that “It is possible that C. jejuni modifies its PG in a manner that affects Nod signalling, as modifications of the PG backbone have been shown to affect how PG fragments are sensed by host cell receptors[44]. This poses an interesting question for future work.” I’m not totally sure I understand what the “interesting question” actually is…
May 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM
sbi5ar
Some great discussion points and questions both, some of which I think I have answers for… Alas! You shall have to wait for 8pm tonight…
May 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM
janitensen
Ok..then again…I am not sure how to put my question that is why I deleted it again earlier, because I read the paper once again…Might just be that I do not have the basics to it…But I still find it a bit vague how PG composition is supposed to be linked with pathogenecity from what they show- also with regard to your questions @zoonotica with the two receptors reacting differently…I can see why PG composition is linked with cell shape…that bit is fine…anyway..interested what you think of it…only a few more minutes
May 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM
TWiV 183: Bats out of hell
[...] – Microbiology Twitter journal club Alan – Where the Wild Types Are (YouTube) Rich – May 14th: Smallpox vaccination day [...]
May 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM
TWiV 183: Bats out of hell | Alan Dove, Ph.D.
[...] - Microbiology Twitter journal clubAlan - Where the Wild Types Are (YouTube)Rich - May 14th: Smallpox vaccination [...]