| Literature DB >> 33028315 |
Manoel Neres Santos Junior1,2, Ronaldo Silva Santos1, Wanderson Souza Neves1, Janaina Marinho Fernandes1, Bruna Carolina de Brito Guimarães2, Maysa Santos Barbosa3, Lucas Santana Coelho Silva2, Camila Pacheco Gomes2, Izadora Souza Rezende3, Caline Novaes Teixeira Oliveira1,2, Nayara Silva de Macêdo Neres1, Guilherme Barreto Campos1, Bruno Lopes Bastos1, Jorge Timenetsky3, Lucas Miranda Marques4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ureaplasma diversum has numerous virulence factors that contribute to pathogenesis in cattle, including Lipid-associated membrane proteins (LAMPs). Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate in silico important characteristics for immunobiological applications and for heterologous expression of 36 LAMPs of U. diversum (UdLAMPs) and, also, to verify by conventional PCR the distribution of these antigens in strains of Brazilian states (Bahia, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, and Mato Grosso do Sul). The Manatee database was used to obtain the gene and peptide sequences of the antigens. Similarity and identity studies were performed using BLASTp and direct antigenicity was evaluated by the VaxiJen v2.0 server. Epitope prediction for B lymphocytes was performed on the BepiPred v2.0 and CBTOPE v1.0 servers. NetBoLApan v1.0 was used to predict CD8+ T lymphocyte epitopes. Subcellular location and presence of transmembrane regions were verified by the software PSORTb v3.0.2 and TMHMM v2.2 respectively. SignalP v5.0, SecretomeP v2.0, and DOLOP servers were used to predict the extracellular excretion signal. Physico-chemical properties were evaluated by the web-software ProtParam, Solpro, and Protein-sol.Entities:
Keywords: Immunoinformatics; Lipoproteins; Prediction; Ureaplasma diversum
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33028315 PMCID: PMC7542862 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02602-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Analysis of similarity between sequences of 36 UdLAMPs and proteomes of bovine subspecies (Bos taurus taurus, Bos taurus indicus and the hybrid Bos taurus x Bos indicus) performed using the BLASTp tool
| UdLAMPs | Similarity with different bovine proteomesb | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Hybrida | |||
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| 11% | – | – | |
| 7%a | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| 29% | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| 9% | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| 4% | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| 10% | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| 17% | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | 10% | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| 8% | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | |
ahybrid: Bos taurus taurus x Bos taurus indicus
bOnly the maximum similarity found
− Similarity not significant by BLASTp
Prediction of antigenicity and discontinuous and continuous B lymphocyte epitopes of each UdLAMP by the predictors CBTOPE v1.0, BepiPred v2.0, and VaxiJen v2. 0
| UdLAMPs | conformational epitopes | linear epitopes | antigenicity (VaxiJen) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| number of predicted regions | % of aa in predicted regions | number of predicted regions | % of aa in predicted regions | ||
| 33 | 23.0 | 9 | 61.6 | 0.54 | |
| 34 | 39.9 | 15 | 56 | 0.45 | |
| 42 | 26.3 | 15 | 65.5 | 0.91 | |
| 19 | 16.7 | 11 | 31 | 0.43 | |
| 41 | 18.2 | 8 | 88.5 | 0.71 | |
| 20 | 25.1 | 6 | 68.2 | 0.51 | |
| 10 | 20.2 | 1 | 83.1 | 1.13 | |
| 69 | 37.0 | 19 | 73 | 0.48 | |
| 58 | 4.3 | 7 | 64.6 | 0.55 | |
| 17 | 16.6 | 14 | 57.6 | 0.31 | |
| 33 | 31.4 | 4 | 90.4 | 1.1 | |
| 68 | 27.3 | 25 | 66.5 | 0.54 | |
| 10 | 9.4 | 11 | 47.3 | 0.48 | |
| 21 | 17.8 | 4 | 77.3 | 0.48 | |
| 55 | 30.3 | 12 | 73.1 | 0.51 | |
| 4 | 6.1 | 2 | 62.6 | 1.23 | |
| 15 | 13.7 | 10 | 36.7 | 0.56 | |
| 2 | 8.2 | 3 | 58.8 | 0.45 | |
| 124 | 19.2 | 84 | 55.9 | 0.41 | |
| 29 | 20.7 | 13 | 62.2 | 0.77 | |
| 34 | 19.6 | 18 | 61 | 0.48 | |
| 36 | 15.7 | 16 | 61.6 | 0.5 | |
| 11 | 21.4 | 6 | 61 | 0.37 | |
| 13 | 14.1 | 9 | 68.9 | 0.45 | |
| 13 | 18.6 | 9 | 39.8 | 0.34 | |
| 36 | 26.9 | 20 | 110 | 0.49 | |
| 23 | 20.1 | 15 | 59.1 | 0.53 | |
| 19 | 21.0 | 5 | 63.3 | 0.58 | |
| 13 | 19.0 | 4 | 59.2 | 0.29 | |
| 32 | 17.2 | 17 | 59.2 | 0.48 | |
| 24 | 14.0 | 17 | 63.2 | 0.48 | |
| 34 | 23.9 | 21 | 59.3 | 0.41 | |
| 51 | 26.9 | 21 | 57.5 | 0.58 | |
| 23 | 15.7 | 18 | 54.1 | 0.57 | |
| 25 | 31.6 | 6 | 77.4 | 0.58 | |
| 47 | 32.1 | 17 | 65.1 | 0.47 | |
*Mapping of B lymphocyte epitopes and antigenicity prediction was also performed for the Msp5 ESXA_MYCBO peptide from A. marginale
Prediction of binding of UdLAMPs (peptide windows with 9 amino acids) to different BoLA alleles (MHCI) performed through the NetBoLApan v1.0 server. The total of strong and weak connections is expressed in absolute numbers
| UdLAMPs | BoLA-1 | BoLA-3 | BoLA-2 | BoLA-6 | BoLA-3 | BoLA-6* | BoLA- | BoLA – |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
| 11 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 16 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 0 | 19 | 10 | |
| 6 | 3 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 4 | 5 | |
| 4 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| 3 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 15 | 8 | 24 | 9 | 8 | 13 | 10 | 13 | |
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 3 | |
| 6 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 16 | 11 | |
| 1 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 9 | 6 | 26 | 9 | 4 | 17 | 13 | 13 | |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | 11 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 8 | |
| 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | |
| 10 | 9 | 26 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 19 | 12 | |
| 3 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 8 | 10 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 13 | |
| 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 42 | 33 | 75 | 44 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 57 | |
| 5 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 7 | 17 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 10 | |
| 6 | 8 | 13 | 11 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 11 | |
| 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 3 | |
| 5 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 7 | |
| 7 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 7 | |
| 6 | 6 | 20 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 18 | 6 | |
| 6 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7 | |
| 5 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 6 | |
| 5 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 8 | 9 | 12 | 10 | 5 | 14 | 15 | 9 | |
| 5 | 5 | 13 | 7 | 0 | 9 | 17 | 11 | |
| 4 | 6 | 16 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 8 | |
| 8 | 12 | 16 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 16 | 10 | |
| 8 | 5 | 16 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 13 | 6 | |
| 6 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | |
| 6 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 16 | 8 | |
* Mapping of TCD8+ lymphocyte epitopes was also performed for Theileria parva Tp2 antigen
BLASTp identity analysis of 36 UdLAMPs with proteomes of M. bovis, M. canadense, M. bovigenitalium, M. bovirhinis and M. dispar
| UdLAMPS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29.81% | – | 33.42% | – | – | |
| – | – | 26.25% | – | – | |
| 29.87% | 30.03% | 24.92% | 26.97% | – | |
| – | – | – | 31.91% | – | |
| 36.43% | 30.3% | 29.4% | 26.97% | 28.92% | |
| – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | |
| 43.95% | 44.93% | 45.84% | 77.42% | 35.01% | |
| – | – | 76.92% | 44.64% | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | 34.38% | – | – | – | |
| 45.88% | 42.65% | 41.83% | 29.85% | 36.36% | |
| – | – | – | – | – | |
| 29.3% | – | – | – | – | |
| 39.77% | 50% | 55.56% | 60.26% | 39.25% | |
| 42.42% | – | – | – | – | |
| 31.33% | 27.2% | 32.93% | 33.33% | 27.39% | |
| – | – | 43.33 | – | – | |
| – | 51.4% | 63.68% | 29.76% | 26.36% | |
| 43.75% | – | – | 32.26% | – | |
| 54.84% | – | 40.82% | – | – | |
| 51.61% | 36.67% | 42.86% | – | – | |
| – | – | – | 33.96% | – | |
| 28.79% | – | – | – | ||
| 31.58% | 28.32% | 29.12% | 28.32% | 27.59% | |
| – | – | 38.03% | 50% | – | |
| – | – | 37.5% | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | ||
| 29.11% | – | 28.52% | – | – | |
| – | – | 47.22% | – | – | |
| 54.17% | – | – | 33.33% | ||
| – | – | 46% | 34.25% | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | |
| 30.66% | – | – | 27.78% | 27.98% |
− Identity not significant by BLASTp
Prediction of physicochemical properties of UdLAMPs. Aliphatic index, PM, GRAVY, and instability index obtained in ProtParam. The solubility was predicted using the server SOLpro and Protein-Sol
| UdLAMPS | PROTPARAM | Protein-Sol | SOLpro | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of amino acids | PM (kDa) | Instability Index | GRAVY | |||
| 404 | 45.6 | 24.4 | −0.65 | Soluble | soluble | |
| 393 | 46.4 | 38.09 | −0.51 | Insoluble | soluble | |
| 495 | 52.9 | 26.61 | −0.58 | Soluble | soluble | |
| 462 | 52.4 | 30.08 | 0.05 | Insoluble | insoluble | |
| 660 | 75.8 | 41.13 | −1.18 | Soluble | soluble | |
| 220 | 25 | 26.72 | −0.36 | Soluble | soluble | |
| 124 | 13.3 | 44.69 | −1.4 | Soluble | soluble | |
| 799 | 90.5 | 33.12 | −0.74 | Soluble | soluble | |
| 280 | 32.2 | 34.88 | −0.93 | Soluble | insoluble | |
| 349 | 41.0 | 38.73 | −0.41 | Insoluble | Insoluble | |
| 408 | 43.8 | 39.13 | −1.16 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 774 | 88.7 | 29.23 | −0.74 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 224 | 25.9 | 29.91 | 0.12 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 343 | 39.1 | 39.42 | −1.26 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 739 | 83.7 | 33.21 | −0.58 | Insoluble | Insoluble | |
| 99 | 9 | 67.15 | −1.13 | – | Soluble | |
| 343 | 39 | 35.32 | 0.61 | Insoluble | Insoluble | |
| 85 | 9.4 | 17.65 | −0.52 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 2052 | 240.2 | 28.43 | −0.57 | Insoluble | – | |
| 381 | 41.9 | 31.04 | −0.72 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 454 | 53.6 | 27.91 | −0.73 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 502 | 59.2 | 29.46 | −0.68 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 187 | 22.3 | 20.89 | −0.39 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 312 | 36.4 | 29.79 | −0.36 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 204 | 24.2 | 35.81 | −0.37 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 520 | 60.5 | 30.61 | −0.73 | Insoluble | Insoluble | |
| 318 | 36 | 9.19 | −0.59 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 215 | 25 | 27.83 | −0.23 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 142 | 16 | 27.89 | 0.05 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 522 | 62.2 | 41.38 | −0.86 | Insoluble | Insoluble | |
| 573 | 64.3 | 23.08 | −0.43 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 514 | 60.2 | 33.36 | −0.65 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 506 | 59.4 | 27.59 | −0.63 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 434 | 49.6 | 38.43 | −0.58 | Soluble | Insoluble | |
| 266 | 29.8 | 17.68 | −0.6 | Soluble | Soluble | |
| 533 | 61.2 | 35.2 | −0.71 | Soluble | Soluble | |
-Results not determined by the predictor
Prediction of classical secretion of the signal peptide performed in SignalP v5.0 and DOLOP. Prediction of non-classical secretion by SecretomeP v2.0. Subcellular location and number of transmembrane loops predicted in PSORTb v3.0.2 and TMHMM v2.0
| UdLAMPs | SignalP | Subcellular Location | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peptide signal and clevage site | Type | SecretomeP | TMHMM | PSortb | DOLOP | |
| MRKHKRIALATGLVAGLLATVSVVAVA--CN | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | – | |
| MKPNHSAGWLFKSKWFFALTSFSIISVA | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| MKIKKIKYKWMSLAIATTVAAAGISAV | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| – | – | – | 4 | Plasma membrane | – | |
| – | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | – | |
| MFKTKRAKLTVGLLTVVGLITTPLIISS--CS | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| MVSTILIGSSIVAVAAA—CN | Sec/SPII | – | 0 | Unknown | – | |
| MKKVINKKWLGLIVGSVFVLSATAAVAAS--CN | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | – | |
| MTKKKVVYSLIAGLVVGSVPASILIA—CS | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | – | |
| – | – | – | 0 | Unknown | – | |
| MAGVSVIGVVAA—CA | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | – | |
| MKTKKKVIISALLCSAVLVPIVGLIAS—CN | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| – | – | – | 1 | Cytoplasm | – | |
| MIKHKFKNKKLVVLLSLGMVAVIGATAILAS--CN | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Plasma membrane | Lipoprotein | |
| MKKSLFKKELAITLGLASVAIITPIIAIA—CN | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | – | |
| MVSTILVGSSIAAIAAA—CN | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Extracellular | – | |
| – | – | – | 7 | Plasma membrane | – | |
| MKKFKSKKWVNYGFGLVALVGLSTSLAIA--CS | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | – | |
| MKKRSKLIYFAVSTLSLSTIIGSLLIG—CT | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Extracellular | Lipoprotein | |
| MKRKINKKLILFSSLITLGLSSSIIIAS—CT | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Plasma membrane | Lipoprotein | |
| NKKLKSTIIFSSLFLVSIPVVIAS—CT | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Plasma membrane | Lipoprotein | |
| NKRLKSTIVFSSLFLVSIPVVLAS—CT | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| VSKTKKKFKLLSSVLVLGLVAVVPTILA—SC | Sec/SPII | – | 1 | Plasma membrane | – | |
| MKKYQKVLLLSSFLFVVAPIVSS—CS | Sec/SPII | – | 2 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| – | – | – | 0 | Unknown | – | |
| MRKQKRLLIATLISSLVVLTPIILAS—CN | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| MKLKKLHKQILISTSLITTFGLTSLLAA—CH | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| MKLKHKWLITIGSIGFISIIGFSTLASCS | Sec/SPII | – | 1 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| MLKKNQIKKMLLITSTSLVSLGIVVSAVA--CS | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | – | |
| MTKARKILISSFILTTIGSVSVLVAS—CS | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Extracellular | Lipoprotein | |
| MKINIKFKIMASFLFLSIAPIIAVS—CS | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Plasma membrane | – | |
| MKRKRIIKQAILIGAVASSISIPLLIAS—CT | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| MKINIKFKIMASFLFLSIAPIIAVS—CS | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Plasma membrane | – | |
| MMINIKRKLMMVFLASLSTITVSSLIVA—CS | Sec/SPII | Yes | 0 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| MKIKRKGIFAFASIGIVAITTTLIAS—CA | Sec/SPII | Yes | 1 | Unknown | Lipoprotein | |
| – | – | – | 0 | Cytoplasm | – | |
- Not predicted by the predictor
Fig. 1Distribution of U. diversum antigens according to the prediction parameters. In red, the proteins included in the evaluated parameter and in white those not included. In undesirable parameters for use in prophylactic and immunodiagnostic measures, the relevant parameters for inducing the production of specific antibodies and positive immunomodulation are evaluated. In undesirable parameters for expression in E. coli, predicted parameters related to the production of stable, soluble, secreted proteins and with properties that facilitate the purification process after expression were evaluated
Primers for amplifying UdLAMPs using conventional PCR
| UdLAMPs | Forward | Reverse | Fragment length (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAGTAAGTGTTGTTGCTG | GTTACCGAAGTCTTGTCC | 797 | |
| AGCGTTGCCTTAGTTAGT | TTAATCCGTCCCACATTG | 965 | |
| CAGGAAGTGCTACAGTTG | ACTCATCATTTACCACCT TC | 421 | |
| CTGAAACCGCTTTAACAAG | ACAACAAGCCGACTAAATC | 652 | |
| GGCTCAAGTAGTGAAGAGAAG | GCAAATGGAATTGGATGTAC | 680 | |
| TTCTGAACCTGAACCACAA | CTAATTCACGACTGCCTT | 937 | |
| GTACCTAATCTCAATCAAGC | CAACTAAGTCAACACGAG C | 307 | |
| CACCTAATCCATCAAAGAAC | GTTTGTAGTAGAGTTGCCTA | 260 | |
| CTCAGTAACTACACCACTT | TGCTTTACCTGTACGGAAT | 298 | |
| GTAGTAGGTTCAGTTCCT G | GATCAGAAGATAGCGATCAG | 732 | |
| CCAGATGGTAATGCTGAAC | CTACTCATGCTCTTAGTTC | 547 | |
| GCGAAGATCCTAAAGCAAT | CGAACCTGAAGTAATAAGG | 379 | |
| GCTTGGAAGACAACTCTAA | TTCTAGCACCTCAGGTAG | 930 | |
| GAGGAACTTTTAGTGATCCA | CATGGTTATACAAAGGGGTG | 125 | |
| CATTAGGTATGGTTGCTGTA | GTTTGATCGGCTCTTCTG | 252 | |
| CATTAGGTATGGTTGCTG | CTTCTGGCATCGGATTTG | 543 | |
| TGAGCAACCAAATACTGAAG | GCTTGAGTTGATGTGTTTG | 312 | |
| GGTAAGCACGATCCTTGT | TTTGTTTGCGGCTGAATC | 178 | |
| GGTAATTGGTGGTGTAATAG | AAGTGATTCAGGAGTTGC | 232 | |
| CTATGGGTTTGGATTAGT | CTTTTCTTTAGCAGCTTC | 187 | |
| CGTTATCAATACCACGACTTC | TGGAATATGTCCTGATCG | 351 | |
| GGTAGAGGTAGTGGTTCA | AGCAGATGGATCTTCGTAAT | 945 | |
| CACTAGAACCAGCAAAACC | CCAAAATATCAGTCCGATCAG | 819 | |
| ACCACTTGTAGCACTAGA | CTAAAATATCAGCCCGATCAG | 830 | |
| TTAGGATTGGTTGCTGTTG | GATTGTTGTGGGTGAAAATC | 509 | |
| CTACCAGATAGTATTGCTC | GGTGGACTTGTTAATGTATC | 809 | |
| CAGAAGAATCACTAGAGC | CTGCTGGGTTATCACTTC | 360 | |
| CCAACCAACTCCTAAACTAG | GCACTCCAAGTGATTCATC | 482 | |
| TAATCTTCCAACCCATCAAG | CTTCTTTTGCTGTATGAGC | 572 | |
| AACCAACTTTGAGCAAGC | GCTGCTTTAGAAAAGATAG | 321 | |
| CAGTTGCTTGTTCACAAC | GGCTTGGTTTGGTTCAAA | 266 | |
| GGATCAGTTAGTGTACTTGTTG | TTAGCAAAGGTTGGATCTTC | 344 | |
| GCAGTTGCTTCATCTATCT | CTAGTCTTGCTACCTTATC | 607 | |
| CGCTACAACTATGACTGAT | AATGGCTGACCAAATTGTG | 243 | |
| CTGATCCTACAGTGGTTAAAC | CCATCAAAGATGAAGTCTTG | 607 | |
| GACAGAGTCTCCAAAACC | TCTAACTGTTTCTTCATTAGGG | 547 | |
| GATTAGTTCAAGTGGTGAAG | ATCATCAACAGCAGTCTT G | 346 | |
| GCTGATGAAGGATATTATGG | GCAAGTGATAGATCGTTTG | 749 |
aTwo pairs of primers were designed for gudiv_93 and gudiv_262
Fig. 2Distribution of U. diversum antigens in 46 strains, one standard strain (ATCC) and 45 isolates from different Brazilian regions. The diagram shows detection by PCR of the antigens in each strain (in green PCR positive and in red negative). On the bottom is the total percentage of antigens that each strain carries in its genome (based on PCR results) and on the left is the percentage of strains carrying the coding sequence for each antigen individually
Fig. 3Distribution of U. diversum antigens in different Brazilian states. The Brazilian states studied are represented in highlighted colors. In each state, the isolated strains and the set of UdLAMPs positive by PCR are used. In bold and underlined are UdLAMPs that (by prediction) showed good characteristics for immunological studies and expression in E. coli, not being retained in any of the exclusion criteria in Diagram 1. Only in bold, the antigens that, although they did not pass all criteria, were maintained in only one or two of the undesirable parameters for use in prophylactic and immunodiagnostic measures in Fig. 1. The figure was acquired at Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brazil_Map-1.png) and was adapted using Adobe Photoshop CS6 version 13.0.6 × 64