- Methodology article
- Open Access
Development and validation of a FACS-based lipoprotein localization screen in the Lyme disease spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi
© Kumru et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
- Received: 17 July 2010
- Accepted: 3 November 2010
- Published: 3 November 2010
In our previous studies on lipoprotein secretion in the Lyme disease spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi, we used monomeric red fluorescent protein 1 (mRFP1) fused to specifically mutated outer surface protein A (OspA) N-terminal lipopeptides to gather first insights into lipoprotein sorting determinants. OspA:mRFP1 fusions could be detected by epifluorescence microscopy both in the periplasm and on the bacterial surface. To build on these findings and to complement the prior targeted mutagenesis approach, we set out to develop a screen to probe a random mutagenesis expression library for mutants expressing differentially localized lipoproteins.
A Glu-Asp codon pair in the inner membrane-localized OspA20:mRFP1 fusion was chosen for mutagenesis since the two negative charges were previously shown to define the phenotype. A library of random mutants in the two codons was generated and expressed in B. burgdorferi. In situ surface proteolysis combined with fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) was then used to screen for viable spirochetes expressing alternative subsurface OspA:mRFP1 fusions. Analysis of 93 clones randomly picked from a sorted cell population identified a total of 43 distinct mutants. Protein localization assays indicated a significant enrichment in the selected subsurface phenotype. Interestingly, a majority of the subsurface mutant proteins localized to the outer membrane, indicating their impairment in "flipping" through the outer membrane to the spirochetal surface. OspA20:mRFP1 remained the protein most restricted to the inner membrane.
Together, these results validate this FACS-based screen for lipoprotein localization and suggest a rather specific inner membrane retention mechanism involving membrane anchor-proximal negative charge patches in this model B. burgdorferi lipoprotein system.
- Fluorescence Activate Cell Sorting
- Borrelia Burgdorferi
- Rabbit Polyclonal Antiserum
- Lyme Disease Spirochete
- Inner Membrane
Temporally and spatially regulated expression of surface-exposed lipoproteins such as OspA, OspC and VlsE enables the Lyme disease spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi to adapt to changing environmental conditions and allows for maintenance of the organism within an enzootic tick-mammal cycle [1–3]. Yet, we are only beginning to understand the factors that govern accurate localization of these important virulence factors to the bacterial cell surface, thereby generating the pathogen-host interface. In prior studies, we demonstrated a role for the N-terminal 'tether' region of these lipoproteins in the localization process. Fusion of the first five residues of the mature outer surface lipoprotein OspA was sufficient to target the red fluorescent reporter protein mRFP1 to the surface of the Borrelia cell . The same study also revealed that previously identified lipoprotein sorting rules for Enterbacteriaceae and Pseudomonales[5–7] did not apply to Borrelia lipoproteins. An alignment of B. burgdorferi lipoprotein tether peptide sequences failed to reveal any apparent primary sequence conservation. Trafficking may thus depend on specific biophysical properties of the tether polypeptide such as hydrophobicity, charge, or secondary structure propensity, rather than strict amino acid identity alone [8, 9]
In the present study, we designed and tested an experimental approach that might help in elucidating these still obscure sorting signals. Based on an existing OspA tether-mRFP1 fusion with a characterized inner membrane (IM) release defect, we generated a partially randomized fluorescent lipopeptide library in B. burgdorferi. A fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)-based screen was then used to enrich for mutants localizing to the periplasm. Our results indicate that this approach can become an important tool to detect general patterns in peptides mediating surface or subsurface localization.
Bacterial strains and growth conditions
Borrelia burgdorferi B31-e2  is a high passage clone of type strain B31 (ATCC 35210) and was generously provided by B. Stevenson (University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY). B. burgdorferi were cultured in liquid or solid BSK-II medium at 34°C under 5% CO2[11, 12]. E. coli strains TOP10 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and XL10-Gold (Stratagene) were used for recombinant plasmid construction and propagation and grown in Luria-Bertani Lennox broth (LB) or on LB agar (Difco). Unless otherwise specified, all bacterial cultures were supplemented with kanamycin (Sigma-Aldrich) at concentrations of 30 μg ml-1 or 200 μg ml-1 in E. coli or Borrelia, respectively.
Construction of mutant plasmid library
Oligonucleotides used in this study
Sequence (5' to 3')b
Introduction of silent mutation in OspA L10 codon yielding Bsa I site
GGGAATAGGTCT C ATATTAGCCTTAATAGC
Introduction of silent mutation in OspA L10 codon yielding Bsa I site
TGCTATTAAGGCTAATATG AGACC TATTCC
Introduction of silent mutation in mRFP1 V15R16 codons yielding Bst BI site
TGCGCTTCAAGGT T CG A A TGGAGGGCTCCG
Introduction of silent mutation in mRFP1 V15R16 codons yielding Bst BI site
GGAGCCCTCCAT T CG A A CCTTGAAGCGCATGAAC
Random mutagenesis oligo
TATTTATTGGGAATAGGTCTC ATATTAGCCTTAATAGCATGTAAGCAAAATGCCTCCTCCNNKNNK GTCATCAAGGAGTTCATGCGCTTCAAGGTTCGAA TGGAGGGCTCCGTG
Generation of double-stranded DNA from Rmut-oligo
Amplification of mutated ospA:mrfp1 region from PflaB
Amplification of mutated ospA:mrfp1 region from ospA
Sequencing of amplified ospA:mrfp1 region from PflaB
Fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS)
2 × 106 spirochetes were harvested as described , washed twice with phosphate buffered saline containing 5 mM MgCl2 (PBS+Mg), and incubated with a final concentration of 50 μg ml-1 proteinase K (Invitrogen) for one hour at room temperature. Mock-treated cells were incubated in PBS+Mg only. Cells were then washed three times with PBS containing 0.1% bovine serum albumin (PBS+BSA) and resuspended in 1 ml of PBS+BSA at a density of 1 to 1.5 × 106 cells ml-1. Spirochetes retaining red fluorescence were then sorted by FACS on a BD FACSAria (BD Biosciences) at a flow rate of 200 events s-1 and 55 psi through a 70 μm nozzle. Excitation, long pass, and band pass wavelengths were 488 nm, 635 nm, and 695 +/- 40 nm, respectively. Upon completion of FACS, the volume of the sorted cells (about 1 ml) was immediately adjusted to 12 ml with BSK-II and incubated at 34°C. The FlowJo program suite, version 7.2.2 (Treestar), was used for data analysis.
DNA sequence analysis and identity of subsurface retention signals
Spirochetes were counted using a Petroff-Hauser counting chamber, adjusted to 200 cells ml-1, plated on solid BSK II media , and incubated at 34°C and 5% CO2. Individual colonies were picked using sterile toothpicks and cultured in 200 μl of BSK-II complete media in a sterile 96-well tissue culture plate (Corning). The mutated ospA-mrfp1 region was amplified from 1 μl of 1:10 diluted culture in sterile water using primers Mutscreen-fwd and -rev (Figure 1 and Table 1). PCR products were purified using a PCR purification kit (Qiagen) and sequenced (AGCT Inc., Wheeling, IL) using primer Mutscreen-seq. Each sequenced mutant was cultured in liquid BSK-II culture for further analysis.
Protein localization assays
To assess protein surface exposure by protease accessibility intact B. burgdorferi cells were treated in situ with proteinase K as described [4, 15]. In order to determine localization of mRFP1 outer membrane vesicles were isolated and purified by treatment of B. burgdorferi cells with low pH, hypotonic citrate buffer followed by isopycnic sucrose gradient ultracentrifugation as described [4, 16].
Protein gel electrophoresis and immunoblot analysis
Proteins were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-12.5% or -10% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and visualized by Coomassie blue staining. For immunoblots, proteins were electrophoretically transferred to a Immobilon-NC nitrocellulose membrane (Millipore) using a Transblot semi-dry transfer cell (Bio-Rad) as described. Membranes were rinsed in 20 mM Tris-500 mM NaCl, pH 7.5 (TBS). TBS with 0.05% Tween 20 (TBST) containing 5% dry milk was used for membrane blocking and subsequent incubation with primary and secondary antibodies; TBST alone was used for the intervening washes. Antibodies used were anti-mRFP1 rabbit polyclonal antiserum (; 1:5000 dilution, a gift from P. Viollier, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH), anti-OppAIV rabbit polyclonal antiserum (; 1:100 dilution, a gift from P.A. Rosa, NIH/NIAID Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Hamilton, MT) and anti-FlaB rabbit polyclonal antiserum (; 1:1000 dilution; a gift from M. Caimano, Univ. of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT), or anti-OspA mouse monoclonal (; H5332; 1:50 dilution). Secondary antibodies were alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) or goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Sigma). CDP-Star (GE Healthcare Life Sciences) was used as the alkaline phosphatase substrate for chemiluminescent detection. Restore Western blot stripping reagent (Pierce) was used to remove bound antibodies from immunoblots to allow for reprobing of membranes.
Densitometry and calculations
Densitometry of Coomassie blue-stained protein bands and Western blot signals acquired with a Fuji LAS-4000 fluorescence imager with a linearity of 4 orders of magnitude was done using the Image J image analysis software http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/. The percentage of surface-localized protein was calculated using the following formula: % surface = 100 - [(mRFP1+pK x FlaB-pK) ÷ (mRFP1-pK x FlaB+pK)] × 100, where mRFP1 and FlaB indicate the raw Western immunoblot densitometry data in absence (-pK) or presence (+pK) of proteolysis. Negative % surface values obtained for four mutants (ED, SK, TR and GR) were set to zero. The OM/PC distribution ratio using the following formula: ratioOM/PC = (mRFP1OM ÷ mRFP1PC) ÷ [(OspAOM ÷ OspAPC) - (OppAIVOM ÷ OppAIVPC)], where mRFP1, OspA and OppAIV represent the raw Western immunoblot densitometry data in either the OM or PC fractions. Genomic B. burgdorferi strain B31 (GenBank Accession # NC_001318) codon usage data were acquired from the Georgia Tech Codon Usage Database http://exon.gatech.edu/GeneMark/metagenome/CodonUsageDatabase/ and compared to detected protein levels. Codon usage-to-protein level correlation coefficients were calculated using Microsoft Excel for Mac 2008.
Design of a fluorescence-based screen for lipoprotein localization in B. burgdorferi
In our recent studies, the use of fusions of red fluorescent mRFP1 to various N-terminal fragments and point mutants of B. burgdorferi surface lipoprotein OspA led to an initial assessment of the sequence requirements for proper surface display [4, 21]. To complement this step-wise, targeted mutagenesis approach, we set out to develop a random mutagenesis screen. Our starting point was a previously described OspA-mRFP1 fusion, OspA20:mRFP1, which could be redirected from the IM to the bacterial surface by mutagenesis of two adjacent negatively charged amino acids (Glu-Asp) at the N-terminus of mRFP1 to two Ala residues. We therefore hypothesized that (i) additional mutagenesis in this OspA20:mRFP1 dipeptide would reveal the specificity of periplasmic, particularly IM retention signals in this model lipoprotein, and that (ii) periplasmically localized fusion protein mutants could be enriched by a combination of in situ surface proteolysis and fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). The approach is detailed in the Materials & Methods section and shown in Figure 1.
Genotypic and phenotypic analysis of pre- and post-sorting cell populations
A total of 172 random clones from the pRJS1016-derived library were analyzed by DNA sequencing. 38 clones were from a population sampled prior to proteolytic shaving and sorting (unsorted), and 134 clones were from a population sampled after proteolytic shaving and sorting (sorted). 63 mutants were identified, 8 being unique to the unsorted population, 40 unique to the sorted population, and 15 common to both populations. Within the sorted population, the majority of the mutants (40 out of 55, i.e. 73%) were recovered repeatedly, e.g. 11 times for Ser-Gly (Figure 3A and Additional File 1-Table S1). This suggested that we were approaching saturation in this experimental setting. As predicted, sorting for fluorescent cells significantly selected against the presence of non-expressing cells: the incidence of "amber" stops within the two mutated codons was reduced 18-fold, from 5 clones in the unsorted to 1 in the sorted population.
We randomly chose 93 clones from the sorted population for further analysis. This cohort covered 43 individual mutants, 11 of which were also identified in the presorted population (Figure 3A as well as Additional File 1-Table S1). The mutants were assessed for (i) protein levels and (ii) protein localization within the spirochetal cell envelope by in situ proteolysis and membrane fractionation. The observed protein levels provided a measure of fusion protein stability in vivo, as expression of all mutant proteins was driven by an identical promoter. Furthermore, there was no correlation between the genomic frequency of the introduced codons and protein levels; correlation coefficients were -0.06 and -0.30 for the first and second codon, respectively.
Classification of phenotypes
Based on the in situ proteolysis assay data, the characterized 43 mutant lipoproteins were classified according to their surface exposure phenotype (Figure 3A and Additional File 1-Table S1): 14 mutants or 31 clones were grouped as predominantly surface-exposed (class +++), 13 mutants or 42 clones had an intermediate phenotype (class ++), and 10 mutants or 22 clones localized largely to a subsurface compartment (+). 6 mutants represented by 19 clones were indistinguishable in their proteinase K accessibility phenotype from the original OspA20:mRFP1ED fusion (class -). Although we observed a continuum of phenotypes from IM-retained to surface-localized lipoprotein mutants, there was an appreciable enrichment of subsurface phenotypes in the sorted population. The median surface percentage dropped from 54% in the unsorted population to 35% in the sorted population (Figure 3B). The median expression levels and OM/PC ratios were 34% and 0.7 for both the unsorted and sorted populations. This indicated that the screen did not exert a pleiotropic, but rather a specific and intended selective pressure on the surface phenotype.
Surface exposure of lipoproteins in diderm bacteria can be affected by defects in either the release from the bacterial IM or a defect in translocation through the OM. To our surprise, most mutants, including the newly identified class - and + mutants localized in significant ratios to the OM (Figure 3A and Additional File 1-Table S1). One standout mutant in that respect is the Lys-Arg mutant OspA20:mRFP1KR: The fusion protein fractionated to the OM comparable to the surface-exposed OspA28:mRFP1, but 99% of the total protein was protected from proteinase K (Figures 3A and 4). This indicated that this and most other mutant proteins were significantly impaired in "flipping" through the OM. Two aspects of this finding are particularly intriguing. First, we recently observed a similar predominance of OM translocation defects when disrupting a Val-Ser-Ser-Leu tetrapeptide within the tether of otherwise wild type OspA. These defects were overcome when the mutant OspA tethers were fused to mRFP1, which contains a similar N-terminal Ala-Ser-Ser-Glu tetrapeptide [4, 21]. The mutations introduced in this study tangentially affect this mRFP1-derived tetrapeptide by altering the Glu residue, with similar results. For example, the introduction of Gly residues as in the OspA20:mRFP1GG mutant led to a defect (Figures 3A and 4) while the previously described replacement by two Ala residues did not . This supports our earlier speculation that the mRFP1 tetrapeptide could functionally offset an OspA tether defect . Second, the original OspA20:mRFP1ED retains the most profound IM-release defect phenotype. The Cys-Lys mutant OspA20:mRFP1CK, although comparable in membrane localization, is significantly less stable in vivo than OspA20:mRFP1ED (Figures 3A and 4). Confirming our earlier site-directed mutagenesis data , single negative charges as in the Asp-Tyr (OspA20:mRFP1DY) or Glu-Leu (OspA20:mRFP1EL) mutants were insufficient to quantitatively restrict a lipoprotein to the borrelial IM (Figures 3A and 4). Therefore, small patches of negative charges continue as the only identified IM retention signal for lipoproteins expressed in Borrelia cells, albeit in an artificial model lipoprotein setting. Further studies will be needed to identify IM retention signals of natural B. burgdorferi lipoproteins such as OppAIV [4, 18].
With few exceptions, mutants were detected at significantly lower levels than both OspA28:mRFP1 and OspA20:mRFP1, despite being expressed from an identical promoter. Interestingly, this phenotype tended to cluster with class +++ surface-localized proteins, e.g. OspA20:mRFP1VR, OspA20:mRFP1WI or OspA20:mRFP1FW (Figures 3A and 4). Based on structural data on the mRFP1 parent molecule DsRed, the mutated residues coincide with the transition from the fusion protein's flexible tether to the structurally confined red fluorescent protein β-barrel . Amino acid substitutions, particularly with large bulky amino acids such as Trp or Phe therefore may compromise the protein fold. Based on our recent discovery that translocation of OspA through the borrelial OM requires an unfolded conformation , we propose that the structural instability of mutants contributes to their ultimate surface localization.
Since their inception, fluorescence-based analytical and preparative methods such as flow cytometry (FCT) and FACS have reached beyond the realm of immunology. FCT already has seen several applications in spirochetal systems, predominantly in deciphering gene regulation mechanisms [22, 24, 25], but also in probing membrane characteristics . Various FACS-based methods such as d ifferential f luorescence i nduction (DFI; ) have been used in different bacterial systems to identify virulence factors important for different pathogenic processes such as invasion and intracellular survival (reviewed in ). Building on the earlier development of recombinant DNA technology  and fluorescent reporter genes [4, 29, 30], this study expands the application of FACS to the study of protein transport mechanisms. Similar FACS-based approaches are perceivable to study secretion of other microbial proteins localizing to the host-pathogen interface. The demonstrated ability to sort live B. burgdorferi cells for a particular fluorescent phenotype also opens the door to DFI studies, i.e. the trapping of promoters that are active during different stages in the complex multi-host life cycle of this medically important spirochete.
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (Grant AI063261 to WRZ). We thank Christine Whetstine for expert technical assistance, Patricia Rosa, Alan Barbour, Patrick Viollier, Melissa Caimano and Darrin Akins for reagents, and Kristina Bridges for stimulating discussions and comments on the manuscript.
- Pal U, de Silva AM, Montgomery RR, Fish D, Anguita J, Anderson JF, Lobet Y, Fikrig E: Attachment of Borrelia burgdorferi within Ixodes scapularis mediated by outer surface protein A. J Clin Invest. 2000, 106: 561-569. 10.1172/JCI9427.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grimm D, Tilly K, Byram R, Stewart PE, Krum JG, Bueschel DM, Schwan TG, Policastro PF, Elias AF, Rosa PA: Outer-surface protein C of the Lyme disease spirochete: a protein induced in ticks for infection of mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004, 101: 3142-3147. 10.1073/pnas.0306845101.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bankhead T, Chaconas G: The role of VlsE antigenic variation in the Lyme disease spirochete: persistence through a mechanism that differs from other pathogens. Mol Microbiol. 2007, 65: 1547-1558. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05895.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schulze RJ, Zückert WR: Borrelia burgdorferi lipoproteins are secreted to the outer surface by default. Mol Microbiol. 2006, 59: 1473-1484. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05039.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yamaguchi K, Yu F, Inouye M: A single amino acid determinant of the membrane localization of lipoproteins in E. coli. Cell. 1988, 53: 423-432. 10.1016/0092-8674(88)90162-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Silva-Herzog E, Ferracci F, Jackson MW, Joseph SS, Plano GV: Membrane localization and topology of the Yersinia pestis YscJ lipoprotein. Microbiology. 2008, 154: 593-607. 10.1099/mic.0.2007/013045-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Narita SI, Tokuda H: Amino acids at positions 3 and 4 determine the membrane specificity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa lipoproteins. J Biol Chem. 2007, 282: 13372-13378. 10.1074/jbc.M611839200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haake DA: Spirochaetal lipoproteins and pathogenesis. Microbiology. 2000, 146: 1491-1504.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cullen PA, Haake DA, Adler B: Outer membrane proteins of pathogenic spirochetes. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2004, 28: 291-318. 10.1016/j.femsre.2003.10.004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Babb K, McAlister JD, Miller JC, Stevenson B: Molecular characterization of Borrelia burgdorferi erp promoter/operator elements. J Bacteriol. 2004, 186: 2745-2756. 10.1128/JB.186.9.2745-2756.2004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barbour AG: Isolation and cultivation of Lyme disease spirochetes. Yale J Biol Med. 1984, 57: 521-525.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zückert WR: Laboratory maintenance of Borrelia burgdorferi. Curr Protoc Microbiol. 2007, Chapter 12 (Unit 12C.1):Google Scholar
- Samuels DS: Electrotransformation of the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Methods Mol Biol. 1995, 47: 253-259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stewart PE, Thalken R, Bono JL, Rosa P: Isolation of a circular plasmid region sufficient for autonomous replication and transformation of infectious Borrelia burgdorferi. Mol Microbiol. 2001, 39: 714-721. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2001.02256.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bunikis J, Barbour AG: Access of antibody or trypsin to an integral outer membrane protein (P66) of Borrelia burgdorferi is hindered by Osp lipoproteins. Infect Immun. 1999, 67: 2874-2883.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Skare JT, Shang ES, Foley DM, Blanco DR, Champion CI, Mirzabekov T, Sokolov Y, Kagan BL, Miller JN, Lovett MA: Virulent strain associated outer membrane proteins of Borrelia burgdorferi. J Clin Invest. 1995, 96: 2380-2392. 10.1172/JCI118295.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen JC, Viollier PH, Shapiro L: A membrane metalloprotease participates in the sequential degradation of a Caulobacter polarity determinant. Mol Microbiol. 2005, 55: 1085-1103. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04443.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bono JL, Tilly K, Stevenson B, Hogan D, Rosa P: Oligopeptide permease in Borrelia burgdorferi: putative peptide-binding components encoded by both chromosomal and plasmid loci. Microbiology. 1998, 144: 1033-1044. 10.1099/00221287-144-4-1033.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Akins DR, Caimano MJ, Yang X, Cerna F, Norgard MV, Radolf JD: Molecular and evolutionary analysis of Borrelia burgdorferi 297 circular plasmid-encoded lipoproteins with OspE- and OspF-like leader peptides. Infect Immun. 1999, 67: 1526-1532.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barbour AG, Tessier SL, Todd WJ: Lyme disease spirochetes and ixodid tick spirochetes share a common surface antigenic determinant defined by a monoclonal antibody. Infect Immun. 1983, 41: 795-804.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schulze RJ, Chen S, Kumru OS, Zückert WR: Translocation of Borrelia burgdorferi surface lipoprotein OspA through the outer membrane requires an unfolded conformation and can initiate at the C-terminus. Mol Microbiol. 2010, 76: 1266-1278. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07172.x.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Whetstine CR, Slusser JG, Zückert WR: Development of a single-plasmid-based regulatable gene expression system for Borrelia burgdorferi. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009, 75: 6553-6558. 10.1128/AEM.02825-08.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yarbrough D, Wachter RM, Kallio K, Matz MV, Remington SJ: Refined crystal structure of DsRed, a red fluorescent protein from coral, at 2.0-Å resolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001, 98: 462-467. 10.1073/pnas.98.2.462.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eggers CH, Caimano MJ, Radolf JD: Sigma factor selectivity in Borrelia burgdorferi: RpoS recognition of the ospE/ospF/elp promoters is dependent on the sequence of the -10 region. Mol Microbiol. 2006, 59: 1859-1875. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05066.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Srivastava SY, de Silva AM: Reciprocal expression of ospA and ospC in single cells of Borrelia burgdorferi. J Bacteriol. 2008, 190: 3429-3433. 10.1128/JB.00085-08.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cox DL, Radolf JD: Insertion of fluorescent fatty acid probes into the outer membranes of the pathogenic spirochaetes Treponema pallidum and Borrelia burgdorferi. Microbiology. 2001, 147: 1161-1169.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Valdivia RH, Falkow S: Fluorescence-based isolation of bacterial genes expressed within host cells. Science. 1997, 277: 2007-2011. 10.1126/science.277.5334.2007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rediers H, Rainey PB, Vanderleyden J, De Mot R: Unraveling the secret lives of bacteria: use of in vivo expression technology and differential fluorescence induction promoter traps as tools for exploring niche-specific gene expression. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2005, 69: 217-261. 10.1128/MMBR.69.2.217-261.2005.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Carroll JA, Stewart PE, Rosa P, Elias AF, Garon CF: An enhanced GFP reporter system to monitor gene expression in Borrelia burgdorferi. Microbiology. 2003, 149: 1819-1828. 10.1099/mic.0.26165-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Campbell RE, Tour O, Palmer AE, Steinbach PA, Baird GS, Zacharias DA, Tsien RY: A monomeric red fluorescent protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002, 99: 7877-7882. 10.1073/pnas.082243699.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.