ArticleBMC genomics2021
Secretome characterization of clinical isolates from the Mycobacterium abscessus complex provides insight into antigenic differences.
Article in BMC genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMycobacterium abscessus (MAB) is a widely disseminated pathogenic non-tuberculous mycobacterium (NTM). Like with the M. tuberculosis complex (MTBC), excreted / secreted (ES) proteins play an essential role for its virulence and survival inside the host. Here, we used a robust bioinformatics pipeline to predict the secretome of the M. abscessus ATCC 19977 reference strain and 15 clinical isolates belonging to all three MAB subspecies, M. abscessus subsp. abscessus, M. abscessus subsp. bolletii, and M. abscessus subsp. massiliense.
resultsWe found that ~ 18% of the proteins encoded in the MAB genomes were predicted as secreted and that the three MAB subspecies shared > 85% of the predicted secretomes. MAB isolates with a rough (R) colony morphotype showed larger predicted secretomes than isolates with a smooth (S) morphotype. Additionally, proteins exclusive to the secretomes of MAB R variants had higher antigenic densities than those exclusive to S variants, independent of the subspecies. For all investigated isolates, ES proteins had a significantly higher antigenic density than non-ES proteins. We identified 337 MAB ES proteins with homologues in previously investigated M. tuberculosis secretomes. Among these, 222 have previous experimental support of secretion, and some proteins showed homology with protein drug targets reported in the DrugBank database. The predicted MAB secretomes showed a higher abundance of proteins related to quorum-sensing and Mce domains as compared to MTBC indicating the importance of these pathways for MAB pathogenicity and virulence. Comparison of the predicted secretome of M. abscessus ATCC 19977 with the list of essential genes revealed that 99 secreted proteins corresponded to essential proteins required for in vitro growth.
conclusionsThis study represents the first systematic prediction and in silico characterization of the MAB secretome. Our study demonstrates that bioinformatics strategies can help to broadly explore mycobacterial secretomes including those of clinical isolates and to tailor subsequent, complex and time-consuming experimental approaches accordingly. This approach can support systematic investigation exploring candidate proteins for new vaccines and diagnostic markers to distinguish between colonization and infection. All predicted secretomes were deposited in the Secret-AAR web-server ( http://microbiomics.ibt.unam.mx/tools/aar/index.php ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.