Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20003185›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2009

Gene doctoring: a method for recombineering in laboratory and pathogenic Escherichia coli strains.

David J Lee, Lewis E H Bingle, Karin Heurlier, Mark J Pallen, Charles W Penn, Stephen J W Busby, Jon L Hobman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

99 citing papers in PubMed, 176 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Adaptive laboratory evolution ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Identification of pathways required forApplied and environmental microbiology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David J LeeSchool of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. D.Lee@bham.ac.uk
Lewis E H Bingle
Karin Heurlier
Mark J Pallen
Charles W Penn
Stephen J W Busby
Jon L Hobman
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E01044X/1Wellcome Trust 076689
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHomologous recombination mediated by the lambda-Red genes is a common method for making chromosomal modifications in Escherichia coli. Several protocols have been developed that differ in the mechanisms by which DNA, carrying regions homologous to the chromosome, are delivered into the cell. A common technique is to electroporate linear DNA fragments into cells. Alternatively, DNA fragments are generated in vivo by digestion of a donor plasmid with a nuclease that does not cleave the host genome. In both cases the lambda-Red gene products recombine homologous regions carried on the linear DNA fragments with the chromosome. We have successfully used both techniques to generate chromosomal mutations in E. coli K-12 strains. However, we have had limited success with these lambda-Red based recombination techniques in pathogenic E. coli strains, which has led us to develop an enhanced protocol for recombineering in such strains.

resultsOur goal was to develop a high-throughput recombineering system, primarily for the coupling of genes to epitope tags, which could also be used for deletion of genes in both pathogenic and K-12 E. coli strains. To that end we have designed a series of donor plasmids for use with the lambda-Red recombination system, which when cleaved in vivo by the I-SceI meganuclease generate a discrete linear DNA fragment, allowing for C-terminal tagging of chromosomal genes with a 6xHis, 3xFLAG, 4xProteinA or GFP tag or for the deletion of chromosomal regions. We have enhanced existing protocols and technologies by inclusion of a cassette conferring kanamycin resistance and, crucially, by including the sacB gene on the donor plasmid, so that all but true recombinants are counter-selected on kanamycin and sucrose containing media, thus eliminating the need for extensive screening. This method has the added advantage of limiting the exposure of cells to the potential damaging effects of the lambda-Red system, which can lead to unwanted secondary alterations to the chromosome.

conclusionWe have developed a counter-selective recombineering technique for epitope tagging or for deleting genes in E. coli. We have demonstrated the versatility of the technique by modifying the chromosome of the enterohaemorrhagic O157:H7 (EHEC), uropathogenic CFT073 (UPEC), enteroaggregative O42 (EAEC) and enterotoxigenic H10407 (ETEC) E. coli strains as well as in K-12 laboratory strains.

Indexed as

Genetic TechniquesRecombination, GeneticBase SequenceDNA, BacterialElectroporationEpitopesEscherichia coliPlasmidsReproducibility of ResultsDNA, BacterialEpitopes

Identifiers

PMID20003185
PMCPMC2796669
OpenAlexW2009611488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.