Cited by 67Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyBiochemical and Structural Characterization

Identification of surface proteins in Enterococcus faecalis V583

Open access
Bøhle, Liv Anette, Riaz, Tahira, Egge-Jacobsen, Wolfgang, Skaugen, Morten, Busk, Øyvind L, Eijsink, Vincent GH, Mathiesen, Geir·2011·BMC Genomics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surface proteins are a key to a deeper understanding of the behaviour of Gram-positive bacteria interacting with the human gastro-intestinal tract. Such proteins contribute to cell wall synthesis and maintenance and are important for interactions between the bacterial cell and the human host. Since they are exposed and may play roles in pathogenicity, surface proteins are interesting targets for drug design. RESULTS: Using methods based on proteolytic "shaving" of bacterial cells and subsequent mass spectrometry-based protein identification, we have identified surface-located proteins in Enterococcus faecalis V583. In total 69 unique proteins were identified, few of which have been identified and characterized previously. 33 of these proteins are predicted to be cytoplasmic, whereas the other 36 are predicted to have surface locations (31) or to be secreted (5). Lipid-anchored proteins were the most dominant among the identified surface proteins. The seemingly most abundant surface proteins included a membrane protein with a potentially shedded extracellular sulfatase domain that could act on the sulfate groups in mucin and a lipid-anchored fumarate reductase that could contribute to generation of reactive oxygen species. CONCLUSIONS: The present proteome analysis gives an experimental impression of the protein landscape on the cell surface of the pathogenic bacterium E. faecalis. The 36 identified secreted (5) and surface (31) proteins included several proteins involved in cell wall synthesis, pheromone-regulated processes, and transport of solutes, as well as proteins with unknown function. These proteins stand out as interesting targets for further investigation of the interaction between E. faecalis and its environment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2164-12-135

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • EF-G, EF-P, and EF-Ts proteins were identified, implying an exposed localization similar to reports in E. faecalis V583 and B. subtilis.

    “Except for EF-Tu, we also identified EF-G, EF-P, and EF-Ts proteins and this implies an exposed localization, similar to the report in E. faecalis V583 (Bøhle et al., 2011) and model B. subtilis (Tjalsma et al., 2008).”

    From Adhesion and Colonization of the Probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum HC-2 in the Intestine of Litopenaeus Vannamei Are Associated With Bacterial Surface Proteins (2022) · cites this paper as Bøhle et al., 2011

    The Protein identification table lists EF-G (elongation factor G) among proteins identified in E. faecalis V583, but labels its predicted localization cytoplasmic; it does not list EF-P or EF-Ts. In Results and discussion > Cytoplasmic proteins, the inference of exposed localization and comparison with B. subtilis concern ribosomal protein L7/L12, not these elongation factors. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bøhle, L. A., Riaz, T., Egge-Jacobsen, W., Skaugen, M., Busk, Ø. L., Eijsink, V. G., & Mathiesen, G.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Mathiesen, Geir
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2011-03-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
135-135
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993183798
Cited by
67
References
68
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd (183627, 183637)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biochemical and Structural Characterization
Keywords
Enterococcus faecalis, surface proteins, cell surface proteome, lipid-anchored proteins, fumarate reductase, cell wall biosynthesis, bacterial pathogenicity, host-pathogen interaction, gastrointestinal tract, therapeutic target
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Bacterial Proteins, Chromatography, Liquid, Electrophoresis, Polyacrylamide Gel, Membrane Proteins, Molecular Sequence Data, Enterococcus faecalis, Genome, Bacterial, Computational Biology, Proteome, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review