Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Viswanathan, V. K.; Koutsouris, Athanasia; Lukic, Sandra; Pilkinton, Mark; Simonovic, Ivana; Simonovic, Miljan; Hecht, Gail (2004)
Publisher: American Society for Microbiology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Molecular Pathogenesis

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: bacterial infections and mycoses, bacteria, biochemical phenomena, metabolism, and nutrition
Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) and enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) are related intestinal pathogens that harbor highly similar pathogenicity islands known as the locus of enterocyte effacement (LEE). Despite their genetic similarity, these two pathogens disrupt epithelial tight junction barrier function with distinct kinetics. EHEC-induced reduction in transepithelial electrical resistance (TER), a measure of barrier function disruption, is significantly slower and more modest in comparison to that induced by EPEC. The variation in bacterial adherence only partially accounted for these differences. The LEE-encoded effector protein EspF has been shown to be critical for EPEC-induced alterations in TER. EspF from both EPEC and EHEC is expressed and secreted upon growth in tissue culture medium. The mutation of EHEC cesF suggested that the optimal expression and secretion of EHEC EspF required its chaperone CesF, as has been shown for EPEC. In contrast to EPEC espF and cesF, mutation of the corresponding EHEC homologs did not dramatically alter the decrease in TER. These differences could possibly be explained by the presence of additional espF-like sequences (designated U- and M-espF, where the letter designations refer to the specific cryptic prophage sequences on the EHEC chromosome closest to the respective genes) in EHEC. Reverse transcription-PCR analyses revealed coordinate regulation of EHEC U-espF and the LEE-encoded espF, with enhanced expression in bacteria grown in Dulbecco-Vogt modified Eagle’s medium compared to bacteria grown in Luria broth. Both EHEC espF and U-espF complemented an EPEC espF deletion strain for barrier function alteration. The overexpression of U-espF, but not espF, in wild-type EHEC potentiated the TER response. These studies reveal further similarities and differences in the pathogenesis of EPEC and EHEC.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article

Collected from