DOCSLIB.ORG

AOAC SMPR 2015.011 Standard Method Performance Requirements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AOAC SMPR 2015.011 Standard Method Performance Requirements AOAC SMPR 2015.011 Table 1. Method performance requirements Minimum performance Parameter requirement Standard Method Performance Requirements AMDL 2000 genomic equivalents/mL (SMPRs®) for Detection of Coxiella burnetii of Coxiella burnetii target DNA in the candidate method sample collection buffer Intended Use: Laboratory or field use by Department of Probability of detection at AMDL ≥0.95 Defense trained operators within sample collection buffer using Nine Mile RSA439 isolate, Clone 4 1 Applicability Probability of detection at AMDL ≥0.95 Specific detection ofCoxiella burnetii in collection buffers from in environmental matrix aerosol collection devices. Field-deployable assays are preferred. materials using Nine Mile RSA439 isolate, Clone 4 2 Analytical Technique System false-negative rate using ≤5% Molecular detection of nucleic acid. spiked environmental matrix materials 3 Definitions System false-positive rate using ≤5% Acceptable minimum detection level (AMDL).—Predetermined environmental matrix materials minimum level of an analyte, as specified by an expert committee, Inclusivity All inclusivity strains (Table 3) which must be detected by the candidate method at a specified must test positive at 2x the AMDLa probability of detection (POD). All exclusivity strains Coxiella burnetii.—Naturally obligate intracellular bacterial Exclusivity [Tables 4 and 5 (Part 2)] pathogen of the Legionellales family. must test negative a Exclusivity.—Study involving pure nontarget strains, which are at 10x the AMDL a potentially cross-reactive, that shall not be detected or enumerated 100% correct analyses are expected. All discrepancies are to be retested following the AOAC Guidelines for Validation of Biological Threat Agent by the tested method. Methods and/or Procedures [Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC Inclusivity.—Study involving pure target strains that shall be INTERNATIONAL (2012) 19th Ed., AOAC INTERNATIONAL, Rockville, MD, USA, Appendix I, http://www.eoma.aoac.org/app_i.pdf]. detected or enumerated by the alternative method. Maximum time-to-result.—Maximum time to complete an analysis starting from the test portion preparation to assay result. 6 Validation Guidance Probability of detection (POD).—Proportion of positive analytical outcomes for a qualitative method for a given matrix at AOAC INTERNATIONAL Methods Committee Guidelines for a specified analyte level or concentration with a ≥0.95 confidence Validation of Biological Threat Agent Methods and/or Procedures interval. [Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL (2012) System false-negative rate.—Proportion of test results that are 19th Ed., Appendix I]. negative contained within a population of known positives. Inclusivity and exclusivity panel members must be characterized System false-positive rate.—Proportion of test results that are positive contained within a population of known negatives. and documented to truly be the species and strains they are 4 Method Performance Requirements purported to be. See Table 1. 7 Maximum Time-to-Results 5 System Suitability Tests and/or Analytical Quality Control Within 4 h. The controls listed in Table 2 shall be embedded in assays as appropriate. Manufacturer must provide written justification if Approved by the AOAC Stakeholder Panel on Agent Detection controls are not embedded in the assay. Assays (SPADA). Final Version Date: September 1, 2015. Table 2. Controls Control Description Implementation Positive Designed to demonstrate an appropriate test response. The positive control should be included Single use per sample at a low but easily detectable concentration, and should monitor the performance of the entire (or sample set) run assay. The purpose of using a low concentration of positive control is to demonstrate that the assay sensitivity is performing at a previously determined level of sensitivity. Negative Designed to demonstrate that the assay itself does not produce a detection in the absence of Single use per sample the target organism. The purpose of this control is to rule out causes of false positives, such as (or sample set) run contamination in the assay or test. Inhibition Designed to specifically address the impact of a sample or sample matrix on the assay’s ability to Single use per sample run detect the target organism. © 2015 AOAC INTERNATIONAL Part 2: Environmental Panel Organisms Table 3. Inclusivity panel Phylogenetic group Isolate (example) [Note: Acceptable minimum identification level (AMIL) Group 1 Nine Mile RSA493 replaces AMDL when AMIL is specified in Table 1.] Nine Mile RSA439 This list is comprised of identified organisms from the environment. Group 2 Henzerling Inclusion of all environmental panel organisms is not a Group 3 Idaho Goat requirement if a method developer provides appropriate justification Group 4 K that the intended use of the assay permits the exclusion of specific Group 5 G panel organisms. Justification for exclusion of any environmental panel organism(s) must be documented and submitted. Group 6 Dugway Organisms and cell lines may be tested as isolated DNA, or as pools of isolated DNA. Isolated DNA may be combined into pools of up to 10 panel organisms, with each panel organism represented Table 4. Exclusivity panel (near-neighbor) at 10 times the AMDL, where possible. The combined DNA pools Species Strain are tested in the presence (at 2 times the AMDL) and absence of the target gene or gene fragment. If an unexpected result occurs, each Legionella pneumophila Philadelphia 1 of the individual environmental organisms from a failed pool must Legionella pneumophila Wadsworth 1 be individually retested at 10 times the AMDL with and without the Legionella pneumophila Sg6 target gene or gene fragment at 2 times the AMDL in the candidate Legionella longbeachae ATCC No. 33462 method DNA elution buffer. DNA in this list that already appear in the inclusivity or Rickettsiella spp. If obtainable exclusivity panel do not need to be tested again as part of the environmental factors panel. • Potential bacterial biothreat agents Bacillus anthracis Ames Yersinia pestis Colorado-92 Table 5. Environmental factors for validating biological threat agent detection assays Francisella tularensis subsp. tularensis Schu-S4 Burkholderia pseudomallei [Adapted from the Environmental Factors Panel approved by Burkholderia mallei SPADA on June 10, 2010.] Brucella melitensis The Environmental Factors Studies supplement the biological threat agent near-neighbor exclusivity testing panel. There are three • Cultivatable bacteria identified as being present in air soil parts to Environmental Factors Studies: Part 1—Environmental or water matrix samples; Part 2—Environmental organisms study; and Acinetobacter lwoffii Part 3—Potential interferants applicable to Department of Defense Agrobacterium tumefaciens applications (added in June 2015 for the Department of Defense Bacillus amyloliquefaciens project). Part 2 is not applicable to techniques that do not detect Bacillus cohnii nucleic acid. Bacillus psychrosaccharolyticus Bacillus benzoevorans Part 1: Environmental Matrix Samples— Bacillus megaterium Aerosol Environmental Matrixes Bacillus horikoshii Method developers shall obtain environmental matrix samples Bacillus macroides that are representative and consistent with the collection method Bacteroides fragilis that is anticipated to ultimately be used in the field. This includes Burkholderia cepacia considerations that may be encountered when the collection system Burkholderia gladoli is deployed operationally, such as collection medium, duration of Burkholderia stabilis collection, diversity of geographical areas that will be sampled, Burkholderia plantarii climatic/environmental conditions that may be encountered, and Chryseobacterium indologenes seasonal changes in the regions of deployment. Clostridium sardiniense Justifications for the selected conditions that were used to Clostridium perfringens generate the environmental matrix and limitations of the validation Deinococcus radiodurans based on those criteria must be documented. Delftia acidovorans Escherichia coli K12 • Method developers shall test the environmental matrix Fusobacterium nucleatum samples for interference using samples inoculated with Lactobacillus plantarum a target biological threat agent sufficient to achieve 95% Legionella pneumophilas probability of detection. Listeria monocytogenes • Cross-reactivity testing will include sufficient samples Moraxella nonliquefaciens and replicates to ensure each environmental condition is Mycobacterium smegmatis adequately represented. Neisseria lactamica © 2015 AOAC INTERNATIONAL Pseudomonas aeruginosa Felis catus (ATCC® CRL-8727™) cat Rhodobacter sphaeroides Homo sapiens (HeLa cell line ATCC® CCL-2™) human Riemerella anatipestifer Gallus gallus domesticus (chicken) Shewanella oneidensis Goat (added by SPADA on September 1, 2015) Staphylococcus aureus • Biological insecticides Stenotophomonas maltophilia Streptococcus pneumoniae Strains of B. thuringiensis present in commercially available Streptomyces coelicolor insecticides have been extensively used in hoaxes and are Synechocystis likely to be harvested in air collectors. For these reasons, it Vibrio cholerae should be used to assess the specificity of these threat assays. • DNA viruses Adenovirus vaccine B. thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Herpes simplex virus or Cytomegalovirus B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (whichever is available) B. thuringiensis subsp. morrisoni Orthopoxvirade Vaccinia Serenade (Fungicide) B. subtilis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Distribution of Tick-Borne Diseases in China Xian-Bo Wu1, Ren-Hua Na2, Shan-Shan Wei2, Jin-Song Zhu3 and Hong-Juan Peng2*
    Wu et al. Parasites & Vectors 2013, 6:119 http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/6/1/119 REVIEW Open Access Distribution of tick-borne diseases in China Xian-Bo Wu1, Ren-Hua Na2, Shan-Shan Wei2, Jin-Song Zhu3 and Hong-Juan Peng2* Abstract As an important contributor to vector-borne diseases in China, in recent years, tick-borne diseases have attracted much attention because of their increasing incidence and consequent significant harm to livestock and human health. The most commonly observed human tick-borne diseases in China include Lyme borreliosis (known as Lyme disease in China), tick-borne encephalitis (known as Forest encephalitis in China), Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (known as Xinjiang hemorrhagic fever in China), Q-fever, tularemia and North-Asia tick-borne spotted fever. In recent years, some emerging tick-borne diseases, such as human monocytic ehrlichiosis, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and a novel bunyavirus infection, have been reported frequently in China. Other tick-borne diseases that are not as frequently reported in China include Colorado fever, oriental spotted fever and piroplasmosis. Detailed information regarding the history, characteristics, and current epidemic status of these human tick-borne diseases in China will be reviewed in this paper. It is clear that greater efforts in government management and research are required for the prevention, control, diagnosis, and treatment of tick-borne diseases, as well as for the control of ticks, in order to decrease the tick-borne disease burden in China. Keywords: Ticks, Tick-borne diseases, Epidemic, China Review (Table 1) [2,4]. Continuous reports of emerging tick-borne Ticks can carry and transmit viruses, bacteria, rickettsia, disease cases in Shandong, Henan, Hebei, Anhui, and spirochetes, protozoans, Chlamydia, Mycoplasma,Bartonia other provinces demonstrate the rise of these diseases bodies, and nematodes [1,2].
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Betaproteobacteria Alphaproteobacteria
    Abstract N-210 Contact Information The majority of the soil’s biosphere containins biodiveristy that remains yet to be discovered. The occurrence of novel bacterial phyla in soil, as well as the phylogenetic diversity within bacterial phyla with few cultured representatives (e.g. Acidobacteria, Anne Spain Dr. Mostafa S.Elshahed Verrucomicrobia, and Gemmatimonadetes) have been previously well documented. However, few studies have focused on the Composition, Diversity, and Novelty within Soil Proteobacteria Department of Botany and Microbiology Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics novel phylogenetic diversity within phyla containing numerous cultured representatives. Here, we present a detailed University of Oklahoma Oklahoma State University phylogenetic analysis of the Proteobacteria-affiliated clones identified in a 13,001 nearly full-length 16S rRNA gene clones 770 Van Vleet Oval 307 LSE derived from Oklahoma tall grass prairie soil. Proteobacteria was the most abundant phylum in the community, and comprised Norman, OK 73019 Stillwater, OK 74078 25% of total clones. The most abundant and diverse class within the Proteobacteria was Alphaproteobacteria, which comprised 405 325 5255 405 744 6790 39% of Proteobacteria clones, followed by the Deltaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, and Gammaproteobacteria, which made Anne M. Spain (1), Lee R. Krumholz (1), Mostafa S. Elshahed (2) up 37, 16, and 8% of Proteobacteria clones, respectively. Members of the Epsilonproteobacteria were not detected in the dataset. [email protected] [email protected] Detailed phylogenetic analysis indicated that 14% of the Proteobacteria clones belonged to 15 novel orders and 50% belonged (1) Dept. of Botany and Microbiology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK to orders with no described cultivated representatives or were unclassified.
    [Show full text]
  • Coxiella Burnetii
    SENTINEL LEVEL CLINICAL LABORATORY GUIDELINES FOR SUSPECTED AGENTS OF BIOTERRORISM AND EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES Coxiella burnetii American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Revised March 2016 For latest revision, see web site below: https://www.asm.org/Articles/Policy/Laboratory-Response-Network-LRN-Sentinel-Level-C ASM Subject Matter Expert: David Welch, Ph.D. Medical Microbiology Consulting Dallas, TX [email protected] ASM Sentinel Laboratory Protocol Working Group APHL Advisory Committee Vickie Baselski, Ph.D. Barbara Robinson-Dunn, Ph.D. Patricia Blevins, MPH University of Tennessee at Department of Clinical San Antonio Metro Health Memphis Pathology District Laboratory Memphis, TN Beaumont Health System [email protected] [email protected] Royal Oak, MI BRobinson- Erin Bowles David Craft, Ph.D. [email protected] Wisconsin State Laboratory of Penn State Milton S. Hershey Hygiene Medical Center Michael A. Saubolle, Ph.D. [email protected] Hershey, PA Banner Health System [email protected] Phoenix, AZ Christopher Chadwick, MS [email protected] Association of Public Health Peter H. Gilligan, Ph.D. m Laboratories University of North Carolina [email protected] Hospitals/ Susan L. Shiflett Clinical Microbiology and Michigan Department of Mary DeMartino, BS, Immunology Labs Community Health MT(ASCP)SM Chapel Hill, NC Lansing, MI State Hygienic Laboratory at the [email protected] [email protected] University of Iowa [email protected] Larry Gray, Ph.D. Alice Weissfeld, Ph.D. TriHealth Laboratories and Microbiology Specialists Inc. Harvey Holmes, PhD University of Cincinnati College Houston, TX Centers for Disease Control and of Medicine [email protected] Prevention Cincinnati, OH om [email protected] [email protected] David Welch, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Information for Microbial Electrochemical Systems Outperform Fixed-Bed Biofilters for Cleaning-Up Urban Wastewater
    Electronic Supplementary Material (ESI) for Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Supplementary information for Microbial Electrochemical Systems outperform fixed-bed biofilters for cleaning-up urban wastewater AUTHORS: Arantxa Aguirre-Sierraa, Tristano Bacchetti De Gregorisb, Antonio Berná, Juan José Salasc, Carlos Aragónc, Abraham Esteve-Núñezab* Fig.1S Total nitrogen (A), ammonia (B) and nitrate (C) influent and effluent average values of the coke and the gravel biofilters. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. Fig. 2S Influent and effluent COD (A) and BOD5 (B) average values of the hybrid biofilter and the hybrid polarized biofilter. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. Fig. 3S Redox potential measured in the coke and the gravel biofilters Fig. 4S Rarefaction curves calculated for each sample based on the OTU computations. Fig. 5S Correspondence analysis biplot of classes’ distribution from pyrosequencing analysis. Fig. 6S. Relative abundance of classes of the category ‘other’ at class level. Table 1S Influent pre-treated wastewater and effluents characteristics. Averages ± SD HRT (d) 4.0 3.4 1.7 0.8 0.5 Influent COD (mg L-1) 246 ± 114 330 ± 107 457 ± 92 318 ± 143 393 ± 101 -1 BOD5 (mg L ) 136 ± 86 235 ± 36 268 ± 81 176 ± 127 213 ± 112 TN (mg L-1) 45.0 ± 17.4 60.6 ± 7.5 57.7 ± 3.9 43.7 ± 16.5 54.8 ± 10.1 -1 NH4-N (mg L ) 32.7 ± 18.7 51.6 ± 6.5 49.0 ± 2.3 36.6 ± 15.9 47.0 ± 8.8 -1 NO3-N (mg L ) 2.3 ± 3.6 1.0 ± 1.6 0.8 ± 0.6 1.5 ± 2.0 0.9 ± 0.6 TP (mg
    [Show full text]
  • Table S4. Phylogenetic Distribution of Bacterial and Archaea Genomes in Groups A, B, C, D, and X
    Table S4. Phylogenetic distribution of bacterial and archaea genomes in groups A, B, C, D, and X. Group A a: Total number of genomes in the taxon b: Number of group A genomes in the taxon c: Percentage of group A genomes in the taxon a b c cellular organisms 5007 2974 59.4 |__ Bacteria 4769 2935 61.5 | |__ Proteobacteria 1854 1570 84.7 | | |__ Gammaproteobacteria 711 631 88.7 | | | |__ Enterobacterales 112 97 86.6 | | | | |__ Enterobacteriaceae 41 32 78.0 | | | | | |__ unclassified Enterobacteriaceae 13 7 53.8 | | | | |__ Erwiniaceae 30 28 93.3 | | | | | |__ Erwinia 10 10 100.0 | | | | | |__ Buchnera 8 8 100.0 | | | | | | |__ Buchnera aphidicola 8 8 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pantoea 8 8 100.0 | | | | |__ Yersiniaceae 14 14 100.0 | | | | | |__ Serratia 8 8 100.0 | | | | |__ Morganellaceae 13 10 76.9 | | | | |__ Pectobacteriaceae 8 8 100.0 | | | |__ Alteromonadales 94 94 100.0 | | | | |__ Alteromonadaceae 34 34 100.0 | | | | | |__ Marinobacter 12 12 100.0 | | | | |__ Shewanellaceae 17 17 100.0 | | | | | |__ Shewanella 17 17 100.0 | | | | |__ Pseudoalteromonadaceae 16 16 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pseudoalteromonas 15 15 100.0 | | | | |__ Idiomarinaceae 9 9 100.0 | | | | | |__ Idiomarina 9 9 100.0 | | | | |__ Colwelliaceae 6 6 100.0 | | | |__ Pseudomonadales 81 81 100.0 | | | | |__ Moraxellaceae 41 41 100.0 | | | | | |__ Acinetobacter 25 25 100.0 | | | | | |__ Psychrobacter 8 8 100.0 | | | | | |__ Moraxella 6 6 100.0 | | | | |__ Pseudomonadaceae 40 40 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pseudomonas 38 38 100.0 | | | |__ Oceanospirillales 73 72 98.6 | | | | |__ Oceanospirillaceae
    [Show full text]
  • The Difference in Clinical Characteristics Between Acute Q Fever and Scrub Typhus in Southern Taiwan
    International Journal of Infectious Diseases (2009) 13, 387—393 http://intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/ijid The difference in clinical characteristics between acute Q fever and scrub typhus in southern Taiwan Chung-Hsu Lai a,b, Chun-Kai Huang a, Hui-Ching Weng c, Hsing-Chun Chung a, Shiou-Haur Liang a, Jiun-Nong Lin a,b, Chih-Wen Lin d, Chuan-Yuan Hsu d, Hsi-Hsun Lin a,* a Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, E-Da Hospital/I-Shou University, 1 E-Da Road, Jiau-Shu Tsuen, Yan-Chau Shiang, Kaohsiung County, 824 Taiwan, Republic of China b Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung County, Taiwan, Republic of China c Department of Health Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung County, Taiwan, Republic of China d Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-Da Hospital/I-Shou University, Kaohsiung County, Taiwan, Republic of China Received 14 April 2008; received in revised form 17 July 2008; accepted 29 July 2008 Corresponding Editor: Craig Lee, Ottawa, Canada KEYWORDS Summary Acute Q fever; Objective: To identify the differences in clinical characteristics between acute Q fever and scrub Coxiella burnetii; typhus in southern Taiwan. Scrub typhus; Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in which serological tests for acute Q Orientia tsutsugamushi; fever and scrub typhus were performed simultaneously regardless of which disease was suspected Clinical characteristics; clinically. From April 2004 to December 2007, 80 and 40 cases of serologically confirmed acute Q Taiwan fever and scrub typhus, respectively, were identified and included in the study for comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Organisms Are Used for Anti-Biofouling Studies
    Table S1. Semi-systematic review raw data answering: Which organisms are used for anti-biofouling studies? Antifoulant Method Organism(s) Model Bacteria Type of Biofilm Source (Y if mentioned) Detection Method composite membranes E. coli ATCC25922 Y LIVE/DEAD baclight [1] stain S. aureus ATCC255923 composite membranes E. coli ATCC25922 Y colony counting [2] S. aureus RSKK 1009 graphene oxide Saccharomycetes colony counting [3] methyl p-hydroxybenzoate L. monocytogenes [4] potassium sorbate P. putida Y. enterocolitica A. hydrophila composite membranes E. coli Y FESEM [5] (unspecified/unique sample type) S. aureus (unspecified/unique sample type) K. pneumonia ATCC13883 P. aeruginosa BAA-1744 composite membranes E. coli Y SEM [6] (unspecified/unique sample type) S. aureus (unspecified/unique sample type) graphene oxide E. coli ATCC25922 Y colony counting [7] S. aureus ATCC9144 P. aeruginosa ATCCPAO1 composite membranes E. coli Y measuring flux [8] (unspecified/unique sample type) graphene oxide E. coli Y colony counting [9] (unspecified/unique SEM sample type) LIVE/DEAD baclight S. aureus stain (unspecified/unique sample type) modified membrane P. aeruginosa P60 Y DAPI [10] Bacillus sp. G-84 LIVE/DEAD baclight stain bacteriophages E. coli (K12) Y measuring flux [11] ATCC11303-B4 quorum quenching P. aeruginosa KCTC LIVE/DEAD baclight [12] 2513 stain modified membrane E. coli colony counting [13] (unspecified/unique colony counting sample type) measuring flux S. aureus (unspecified/unique sample type) modified membrane E. coli BW26437 Y measuring flux [14] graphene oxide Klebsiella colony counting [15] (unspecified/unique sample type) P. aeruginosa (unspecified/unique sample type) graphene oxide P. aeruginosa measuring flux [16] (unspecified/unique sample type) composite membranes E.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomy JN869023
    Species that differentiate periods of high vs. low species richness in unattached communities Species Taxonomy JN869023 Bacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinomycetales; ACK-M1 JN674641 Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; [Saprospirae]; [Saprospirales]; Chitinophagaceae; Sediminibacterium JN869030 Bacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinomycetales; ACK-M1 U51104 Bacteria; Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Comamonadaceae; Limnohabitans JN868812 Bacteria; Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Comamonadaceae JN391888 Bacteria; Planctomycetes; Planctomycetia; Planctomycetales; Planctomycetaceae; Planctomyces HM856408 Bacteria; Planctomycetes; Phycisphaerae; Phycisphaerales GQ347385 Bacteria; Verrucomicrobia; [Methylacidiphilae]; Methylacidiphilales; LD19 GU305856 Bacteria; Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Rickettsiales; Pelagibacteraceae GQ340302 Bacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinomycetales JN869125 Bacteria; Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Comamonadaceae New.ReferenceOTU470 Bacteria; Cyanobacteria; ML635J-21 JN679119 Bacteria; Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Comamonadaceae HM141858 Bacteria; Acidobacteria; Holophagae; Holophagales; Holophagaceae; Geothrix FQ659340 Bacteria; Verrucomicrobia; [Pedosphaerae]; [Pedosphaerales]; auto67_4W AY133074 Bacteria; Elusimicrobia; Elusimicrobia; Elusimicrobiales FJ800541 Bacteria; Verrucomicrobia; [Pedosphaerae]; [Pedosphaerales]; R4-41B JQ346769 Bacteria; Acidobacteria; [Chloracidobacteria]; RB41; Ellin6075
    [Show full text]
  • Parst Is a Widespread Toxin–Antitoxin Module That Targets Nucleotide Metabolism
    ParST is a widespread toxin–antitoxin module that targets nucleotide metabolism Frank J. Piscottaa, Philip D. Jeffreyb, and A. James Linka,b,c,1 aDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; bDepartment of Molecular Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; and cDepartment of Chemistry, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 Edited by Marlene Belfort, University at Albany, Albany, NY, and approved December 4, 2018 (received for review August 27, 2018) Toxin–antitoxin (TA) systems interfere with essential cellular pro- I toxins are typified by an RNA-level TA interaction, where an cesses and are implicated in bacterial lifestyle adaptations such as antisense RNA binds toxin mRNA to inhibit its translation. Type persistence and the biofilm formation. Here, we present structural, II TA systems function via protein–protein interactions, where biochemical, and functional data on an uncharacterized TA system, binding of the antitoxin to the toxin inhibits its activity (10). Of the COG5654–COG5642 pair. Bioinformatic analysis showed that the two earliest known TA systems mentioned above, hok/sok is this TA pair is found in 2,942 of the 16,286 distinct bacterial species an example of a type I system, while ccdAB is type II (11, 12). in the RefSeq database. We solved a structure of the toxin bound Upon translation, type I toxins are small, hydrophobic peptides to a fragment of the antitoxin to 1.50 Å. This structure suggested that lead to cell lysis through disruption of the plasma mem- that the toxin is a mono-ADP-ribosyltransferase (mART). The toxin brane. Type II toxins, however, function through a variety of specifically modifies phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate synthetase mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Coxiella Burnetii Presence After Tick Bite in North‑Eastern Poland
    Infection (2020) 48:85–90 https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-019-01355-w ORIGINAL PAPER Assessment of Coxiella burnetii presence after tick bite in north‑eastern Poland Karol Borawski1 · Justyna Dunaj1 · Piotr Czupryna1 · Sławomir Pancewicz1 · Renata Świerzbińska1 · Agnieszka Żebrowska2 · Anna Moniuszko‑Malinowska1 Received: 12 June 2019 / Accepted: 4 September 2019 / Published online: 14 September 2019 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Purpose The aim of the study is to assess anti-Coxiella burnetii antibodies presence in inhabitants of north-eastern Poland, to assess the risk of Q fever after tick bite and to assess the percentage of co-infection with other pathogens. Methods The serological study included 164 foresters and farmers with a history of tick bite. The molecular study included 540 patients, hospitalized because of various symptoms after tick bite. The control group consisted of 20 honorary blood donors. Anti-Coxiella burnetii antibodies titers were determined by Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) Phase 1 IgG ELISA (DRG International Inc. USA). PCR was performed to detect DNA of C. burnetii, Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Results Anti-C. burnetii IgG was detected in six foresters (7.3%). All foresters with the anti-C. burnetii IgG presence were positive toward anti-B. burgdorferi IgG and anti-TBE (tick-borne encephalitis). Anti-C. burnetii IgG was detected in fve farmers (6%). Four farmers with anti-C. burnetii IgG presence were positive toward anti-B. burgdorferi IgG and two with anti-TBE. Among them one was co-infected with B. burgdorferi and TBEV. Correlations between anti-C. burnetii IgG and anti-B. burgdorferi IgG presence and between anti-C.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Coding Rnas of the Q Fever Agent, Coxiella Burnetii
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2015 Non-coding RNAs of the Q fever agent, Coxiella burnetii Indu Ramesh Warrier The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Warrier, Indu Ramesh, "Non-coding RNAs of the Q fever agent, Coxiella burnetii" (2015). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4620. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4620 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NON-CODING RNAS OF THE Q FEVER AGENT, COXIELLA BURNETII By INDU RAMESH WARRIER M.Sc (Med), Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, India, 2010 Dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cellular, Molecular and Microbial Biology The University of Montana Missoula, MT August, 2015 Approved by: Sandy Ross, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Michael F. Minnick, Chair Division of Biological Sciences Stephen J. Lodmell Division of Biological Sciences Scott D. Samuels Division of Biological Sciences Scott Miller Division of Biological Sciences Keith Parker Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences Warrier, Indu, PhD, Summer 2015 Cellular, Molecular and Microbial Biology Non-coding RNAs of the Q fever agent, Coxiella burnetii Chairperson: Michael F. Minnick Coxiella burnetii is an obligate intracellular bacterial pathogen that undergoes a biphasic developmental cycle, alternating between a small cell variant (SCV) and a large cell variant (LCV).
    [Show full text]
  • Host-Adaptation in Legionellales Is 2.4 Ga, Coincident with Eukaryogenesis
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/852004; this version posted February 27, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 1 Host-adaptation in Legionellales is 2.4 Ga, 2 coincident with eukaryogenesis 3 4 5 Eric Hugoson1,2, Tea Ammunét1 †, and Lionel Guy1* 6 7 1 Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Science for Life Laboratories, 8 Uppsala University, Box 582, 75123 Uppsala, Sweden 9 2 Department of Microbial Population Biology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary 10 Biology, D-24306 Plön, Germany 11 † current address: Medical Bioinformatics Centre, Turku Bioscience, University of Turku, 12 Tykistökatu 6A, 20520 Turku, Finland 13 * corresponding author 14 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/852004; this version posted February 27, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 15 Abstract 16 Bacteria adapting to living in a host cell caused the most salient events in the evolution of 17 eukaryotes, namely the seminal fusion with an archaeon 1, and the emergence of both the 18 mitochondrion and the chloroplast 2. A bacterial clade that may hold the key to understanding 19 these events is the deep-branching gammaproteobacterial order Legionellales – containing 20 among others Coxiella and Legionella – of which all known members grow inside eukaryotic 21 cells 3.
    [Show full text]