Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, April 2006, p. 3947-3956, Vol. 80, No. 8
0022-538X/06/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JVI.80.8.3947-3956.2006
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
INSERM-UPMC UMR 538, Faculty of Medicine Saint Antoine, 27 rue de Chaligny, 75012 Paris, France,1 Cell Imaging Core Facilities, IFR 65, Hôpital Tenon, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris, France2
Received 25 November 2005/ Accepted 31 January 2006
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Surprisingly, only few viruses have been shown to destroy actin filamentous structures. In some instance, it has been shown that virus-induced disruption of actin microfilament may facilitate virus release, as it is the case for adenovirus (22), human cytomegalovirus (25), vesicular stomatitis virus (50), and rubella virus (4).
Recent studies have suggested that rotavirus, a nonenveloped virus, may also interfere with the actin cytoskeleton (6). Rotaviruses belong to the Reoviridae family and are the major cause of viral gastroenteritis in young children (28). Mature virions are nearly spherical icosahedral 70- to 85-nm-diameter particles with a triple shell of proteins surrounding the genome formed by 11 segments of double-stranded RNA (40). Shortly after rotavirus infection of intestinal cells, the brush border actin cytoskeleton is disorganized (6) and the apical targeting of some brush border hydrolases is impaired (26). In order to understand the mechanisms underlying rotavirus effect on actin organization and their functional consequences on the host cells, we focused our attention on the rotavirus spike protein VP4 because this protein is the exclusive constituent of the 60 spikes sticking out of the surface of rotavirus particles that are thought to mediate primary interactions of the virus with cellular components (39, 51). This rotavirus structural protein is essential for the entry of rotavirus into cells as well as for its virulence (1). During the viral cycle, VP4 is detectable early within infected intestinal cells and specifically associates with the apical plasma membrane, within raft-type membrane microdomains, before the onset of progeny virions morphogenesis (46). VP4 is a cytosolic protein that is not found within the Golgi apparatus (27), suggesting an atypical and still unknown mechanism for its apical polarized membrane targeting. It should be pointed out that the subcellular localization of VP4 still remains a matter of debate. Some authors have shown that VP4 localized within or near the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in nonpolarized MA104 cells (18, 36, 38). In a recent study, however, we have shown that VP4 was not detected within the ER of polarized intestinal Caco-2 cells and was independent of tunicamycin, a drug known to block early step of N-glycosylation and ER exit (13).
We show here that VP4 binds to a subset of bundled actin microfilaments and exerts a very strong, specific, and original remodeling activity leading to the formation of actin bodies. In intestinal cells the ability of VP4 to specifically bind to microvillar actin bundles results in its targeting to the apical membrane. Later on, interactions between VP4 and brush border actin microfilaments result in a specific remodeling of this membrane, that most likely accounts for the previously observed alterations of the intestinal brush border during rotavirus infection. Our results thus provide a molecular explanation for some critical aspects of rotavirus physiopathology. The apical expression of VP4 within microvillar actin bundles may also be part of the virus strategy for its final assembly and polarized apical release from intestinal cells.
|
|
|---|
Cell culture. Cell lines were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (LGC Promochem, Molsheim, France). Cos-7 (monkey kidney) cells were maintained according to the American Type Culture Collection's instructions. Caco-2 (human colon adenocarcinoma) cells were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 20% fetal calf serum, 100 U of penicillin/ml, 100 µg of streptomycin/ml, and 1% nonessential amino acids. Cells were grown in a humidified 10% CO2 incubator at 37°C.
Plasmids and transfection experiments. The VP4 (RF strain) full-length cDNA was obtained by PCR using pBS-RF4 as a template. One primer corresponds to the 5' end of VP4 sequence with a XbaI (underlined) site: 5'CATCTAGATGGCTTCACTCATTTATAG3'. The second primer corresponds to the 3' end of VP4 sequence with a HindIII (underlined) site: 5'GCAAGCTTTACAAGCGACATTGCATTATC3'. Amplicon was ligated into a pGEMT vector (Promega, Madison, WI) and then digested with XbaI and HindIII enzymes and introduced into a pTEJ8 vector (23). The pEGFP-C1-VP4 plasmid was obtained while proceeding in the same way, using a pEGFP-C1 vector from Clontech (Ozyme, Montigny le Bretonneux, France) and the following primers: 5'ATCTCGAGCTATGGCTTCACTCATTTATAG3' and 5'GTGGATCCTTACAAGCGACATTGC3' including the XhoI and BamHI (respectively underlined) sites.
Thus, enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) was linked to VP4 at the N-terminal end of the viral protein. EGFP is added to the N-terminal side of the protein VP4 in order to work under the same conditions as described in reference 32. Plasmid transfections in Cos-7 cells were performed using FuGene6 (Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France) according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Plasmid transfections in Caco-2 cells were performed using 5 µg DNA and Amaxa technology (Amaxa, Koeln, Germany), an electroporation technology that allows the delivery of DNA straight into the nucleus and that was optimized notably for Caco-2 cell lines (www.amaxa.com). Nucleofected Caco-2 cells (7.5 x 105) were seeded in a 12-mm-diameter well.
Virus. Production and titration of the rotavirus RF strain were carried out as described for the RRV strain (27). Infections of cells were performed as previously described (46), with a multiplicity of infection of 1 PFU for Cos-7 cells or 10 PFU for Caco-2 cells.
Antibodies and fluorescent staining reagents. Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against alpha tubulin, cytokeratin, and vimentin were purchased from Sigma (Saint Quentin Fallavier, France). Polyclonal goat serum anti-actin (I-19), MAb anti-protein disulfide isomerase, and polyclonal goat serum anti-early endosome antigen 1 were from Santa Cruz (California). Polyclonal rabbit serum anti-catalase was from Biomol International (Plymouth Meeting, PA). Polyclonal sheep serum anti-TGN46 was from Serotec (Cergy-Saint-Christophe, France). MAb anti-transferrin receptor was from Zymed laboratories (Clinisciences, Montrouge, France). MAbs anti-ERGIC 53 and anti-giantin were generously provided by H. P. Hauri (Biozentrum, Basel, Switzerland). MAb anti-VP4 antibody (7.7) was a generous gift of J. Cohen (CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette, France). Alexa 547-phalloidin was purchased from FluoProbes (Montluçon, France). Lysotracker and Mitotracker were purchased from Molecular Probes (Invitrogen, Cergy-Pontoise, France). The pDsRed2-PTS1 plasmid was from Clontech (Ozyme, Montigny le Bretonneux, France).
Immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy. For fixation, cells were quickly washed in 10 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, and 150 mM NaCl (PBS) or specifically in 10 mM morpholinoethanesulfonic acid buffer [pH 6.1], 138 mM KCl, 3 mM MgCl2, 2 mM EGTA, and 320 mM sucrose for microtubules preservation (41). Cells were then treated with the same buffer containing 2% paraformaldehyde for 10 min, or alternatively with ice-cold methanol for 3 min for cytokeratin fixation. After a washing, cells were further permeabilized with the starting buffer containing 0.1% Triton X-100 for 5 min.
Samples were incubated with the primary antibody for 1 h. After PBS washes, the fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-, Cy3-, or Cy5-labeled second antibodies were incubated for 1 h. After washing, cells were incubated for 30 min with 100 mg/ml of 1,4-diazabicyclo-[2.2.2]-octane antifading reagent and then mounted with Glycergel (Dako, Trappes, France). For observation and analysis of living cells, a POC-Chamber-System (H. Saur, Reutlingen, Germany) was used.
The preparations were observed with a Leica TCS Spectral (SP2) instrument equipped with an inverted microscope with 63 x and 100 x oil immersion objectives both with a numerical aperture of 1.4. A krypton-argon mixed-gas laser and two helium-neon mixed-gas lasers were used to respectively generate the bands at 488 nm, 543 nm, and 633 nm.
Immunoprecipitation experiments. Infected cells were washed with ice-cold PBS, scraped in ice-cold lysis buffer containing 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 300 mM KCl, 5% (vol/vol) glycerol, Triton X-100 0.5% (wt/vol), and antiprotease cocktail (Roche, Meylan, France) and passed 10 times through a 23-gauge needle. After removal of nuclei by centrifugation at 400 x g for 10 min, clarified lysates were precleared by incubation with Dynabead paramagnetic beads covalently linked to recombinant protein A (Dynalbiotech, Compiegne, France) for 1 h at 4°C. The precleared supernatant was then subjected to immunoprecipitation overnight at 4°C, the monoclonal 7.7 anti-VP4 antibodies being covalently linked to the Dynabeads (according to the manufacturer's instructions).
The bound proteins were eluted in Laemmli sample buffer with 50 mM dithiothreitol, boiled for 5 min, and then subjected to a 12.5% sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.
Western blot. Immunoprecipitation experiments samples were resolved by 12.5% sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. After electrophoresis, proteins were transferred to an nitrocellulose membrane for immunoblot analysis. Nonspecific binding of antibodies was blocked with 1% polyvinylpyrrolidone-0.1% Tween 20 in PBS. Nitrocellulose sheets were incubated with a primary antibody for 1 h. After PBS-0.1% Tween 20 washes, horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibodies were added for 1 h. Enhanced chemiluminescence reagent and Biomax-Light 1 films (Amersham Biosciences, Saclay, France) were used for protein detection. Films were scanned with a densitometric scanner, and bands were quantified with Scion Image software (version 4.0.2).
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (54K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. VP4, the spike rotavirus protein, localizes within filaments and dots in infected and transfected Cos-7 cells. Cos-7 cells were infected with the rotavirus at 1 PFU/cell for 4 h (A) or transiently transfected with plasmids encoding VP4 (B) or EGFP-VP4 (C) for 24 h. Cells were then processed for VP4 staining (A and B). Images gallery displays projections of all 0.5-µm xy focal sections taken throughout the height of the cells. Scale bars = 10 µm.
|
![]() View larger version (79K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. EGFP-VP4 specifically colocalizes with polymerized actin. Cos-7 cells were analyzed after 24 h pEGFP-VP4 transient transfection. EGFP-VP4 expressing cells (A, E, I, and L) were immunostained with anti- -tubulin (C and N), antivimentin (G), or anticytokeratin (J) and/or colabeled with phalloidin to detect F-actin (B, F, and M). EGFP-VP4 expressing Cos-7 cells in panels L through O were treated for 1 h with 10 µM of cytochalasin D before fixation. Images gallery displays confocal single xy planes. Note that colabeling of anticytokeratin and phalloidin is not possible because methanol fixation for cytokeratin preservation is not compatible with phalloidin labeling. Scale bars = 10 µm.
|
![]() View larger version (33K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. VP4 and actin interact in infected Cos-7 cells. Cos-7 cells were infected with rotavirus at 1 PFU/cell for 4 h (A through C), with 1 h of 10 µM cytochalasin D treatment (D through F). Cells were then processed for phalloidin labeling (B and E) and VP4 immunostaining (A and D). Images gallery displays confocal single xy planes. Scale bars = 10 µm. Lysates from mock-infected or 4-h-infected Cos-7 cells were subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-VP4 antibodies and then to Western blotting using anti-VP4 and antiactin (G). Lane a, mock-infected Cos-7 cells lysates immunoprecipitated with anti-VP4 antibodies. Lanes b and c, infected Cos-7 cells lysates immunoprecipitated with nonrelevant antibody and anti-VP4 antibodies, respectively. Note that immunoglobulins were not detected because anti-VP4 was covalently linked to protein A-Dynabeads.
|
![]() View larger version (50K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. EGFP-VP4 does not localize within identified vesicular compartments. Cos-7 cells were fixed after 24-h pEGFP-VP4-transient transfection, permeabilized, and vesicular compartment markers were stained by indirect immunofluorescence. The major compartments of the exocytic and endocytic pathways were explored using antibodies against protein disulfide isomerase for the endoplasmic reticulum, ERGIC-53 for the intermediate compartment, giantin for the Golgi apparatus, TGN46 protein for the trans-Golgi network, the early endosomal antigen-1 for early endosomes, transferrin receptor for late endosomes, lysotracker for lysosomes, Mitotracker for mitochondria, and either anticatalase antibodies or a dsRed-labeled plasmid containing the peroxisome targeting signal PTS1 for peroxisomes. EGFP-VP4-expressing cells (A', B', C', D', E', F', G', H', I', and J') were costained with anti-protein disulfide isomerase (PDI) (A"), anti-ERGIC-53 (B"), anti-giantin (C"), anti-TGN-46 (D"), anti-early endosome antigen 1 (E"), anti-transferrin receptor (F"), lysotracker (G"), mitotracker (H"), or anti-catalase (I"). (J') displays Cos-7 cells cotransfected with plasmids encoding EGFP-VP4 and PST1-dsRed, respectively. Images gallery displays confocal single xy planes. Scale bars = 10 µm.
|
VP4 acts as an original actin-remodeling agent. The formation of actin bodies was never observed in control EGFP-transfected cells (Fig. 5A through C) and could be the consequence of an actin-remodeling event that may be promoted by VP4 expression. This hypothesis was strengthened by the observation that the formation of bodies was time dependent. As shown in Fig. 5D through G, when EGFP-VP4 expressing Cos-7 cells were observed 24 h after transient transfection, VP4 distributed within two populations of filaments and bodies that both colocalized with phalloidin. When these cells were observed 48 h after transient transfection, they displayed a different pattern in which the number of filamentous structures decreased and the number and size of bodies increased (Fig. 5H through K). This was even more pronounced 72 h after transfection (Fig. 5L through O). These bodies were strongly stained with phalloidin but not with antitubulin (Fig. 5F, J, and N) or anti-intermediate filament antibodies (not shown). The pattern of actin distribution in VP4 transfected cells was reminiscent of the one observed in normal Cos-7 cells treated with cytochalasin D. Therefore, Cos-7 cells were treated with 10 µM cytochalasin D for one hour before fixation. Confocal images displayed in Fig. 5P through R showed that the distribution of Alexa 547-phalloidin was perturbed as in VP4-transfected cells (Fig. 5, compare panels P and I). However, the protein EGFP-VP4 remodeled only actin bundles even after 72 h posttransfection, whereas 3 h cytochalasin D treatment also perturbed the microtubule organization. Additional experiments (not shown) indicated that nocodazole, a drug known to perturb microtubules, also modified actin organization when used for several hours periods, explaining why a 6-h nocodazole treatment is able to reorganize VP4 localization (33).
![]() View larger version (62K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. VP4-induced actin remodeling partially mimics cytochalasin D. Control EGFP transfected Cos-7 cells were labeled with Alexa 547-phalloidin at 48 h posttransfection (A through C). Cos-7 cells expressing EGFP-VP4 were analyzed 24 h (D through G), 48 h (H through K) or 72 h (L through O) posttransfection. These transfected cells (A, D, H, and L) or cells treated with cytochalasin D (10 µM) for 1 h (P through R) or for 3 h (S through U) were stained using Alexa 547-phalloidin (B, E, I, M, P, and S) or anti- -tubulin antibody (F, J, N, Q, and T). Images gallery displays projections of all 0.5-µm xy focal sections taken throughout the height of cells. Scale bars = 10 µm.
|
![]() View larger version (70K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. VP4 remodels actin microfilaments into actin bodies. EGFP-VP4 expressing Cos-7 cells were mounted in a POC chamber and cells were perfused with 37°C 50 mM HEPES and OPTI-MEM medium. Images were acquired with a confocal microscope from time zero (To) to 15 min after perfusion (T+15min) every 3 min. Image gallery displays projections of all 0.3-µm xy focal sections taken throughout the height of a zoomed region of a EGFP-VP4-expressing cell. Scale bar = 10 µm.
|
![]() View larger version (44K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 7. VP4 localizes at the brush border and perturbs actin bundles organization. EGFP-VP4 expressing Caco-2 cells were labeled 72 h after nucleofection with Alexa 547-phalloidin. Image gallery displays an apical plane these cells (A) or xz section (B). Fifteen-day-old Caco-2 cells were infected with rotavirus for 6 h (C through G) or for 18 h (H and I). A 1-h cytochalasin D (cytoD) (10 µM) treatment was performed after at 5 h p.i. (F and G). Cells were then processed for Alexa 547-phalloidin labeling and VP4 immunostaining using MAb 7.7. Images gallery displays apical planes (A, C, F, and H), basal planes (D and G) or xz sections (B, E, and I). Scale bar = 5 µm.
|
![]() View larger version (69K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 8. Actin is coimmunoprecipitated with VP4 from 18-h-infected Caco-2 cells. Differentiated Caco-2 cells were infected with rotavirus at 10 PFU/cell. Lysates from mock-infected or 18-h-infected Caco-2 cells were subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-VP4 antibodies and then to Western blotting using anti-VP4 and anti-actin. Lane a, mock-infected Caco-2 cells lysates immunoprecipitated with anti-VP4 antibodies; lanes b and c, infected Caco-2 cells lysates immunoprecipitated with nonrelevant antibody and anti-VP4 antibodies, respectively. Note that immunoglobulins were not detected because anti-VP4 was covalently linked to protein A-Dynabeads.
|
|
|
|---|
VP4 specifically remodels actin bundles into actin bodies. VP4 remodeling effects are reminiscent of the ones observed upon cytochalasin D treatment. They are actually clearly distinct. (i) In the present study, we found, like others, that a micromolar concentration of cytochalasin D was able to remodel the actin cytoskeleton within few minutes, indicating that cytochalasin D rapidly diffuses to both ends of actin microfilaments and blocks polymerization (17). The interaction of VP4 with actin is much slower and appears to be biphasic. In a first phase, starting from 9 h posttransfection, VP4 labels actin microfilaments. A similar observation is made for infected intestinal cells, in which VP4 starts to label actin microfilaments at the brush border within 4 to 6 h postinfection. This first phase likely corresponds to the time needed to synthesize enough VP4 to decorate actin microfilaments. Then, in a later phase, starting 24 h posttransfection in Cos-7 cells or 18 h postinfection in Caco-2 cells, VP4 exerts its remodeling activity, suggesting either that the intracellular concentration of VP4 became sufficient or alternatively that recruitment or induction of additional factors are required to interfere with actin bundles dynamics. (ii) VP4 exerts a very specific action on actin microfilaments with no detectable influence on other cytoskeleton components. This is not the case for cytochalasin D, since we show here that this drug, even when used for rather short periods (3 h), significantly modifies microtubule and centrosome organization. (iii) VP4 does not display any effect on the Golgi organization. It has been previously shown that, beside the well-known role of microtubule on Golgi maintenance (29, 48), disassembly of actin cytoskeleton using cytochalasin D promotes Golgi fragmentation (44). Thus, VP4 should not interact with the subset of actin microfilaments involved in Golgi maintenance. (iv) VP4 specifically destroys the brush border actin cytoskeleton in polarized epithelial cells. By contrast, cytochalasin D and other related drugs indistinctly affect most of the cellular actin cytoskeleton (7, 57). It is well known that depending on the cell type and intracellular localization, the actin cytoskeleton may adopt different types of organization such as filopodia, pseudopodia, or actin bundles that differ according to their reticulation states, their lengths and the families of associated actin binding proteins (ABPs) (42). In the present study, VP4 in either transfected or infected Caco-2 cells is essentially targeted to the apical part of the cell, where actin is organized as bundles within microvilli (21). It remains to be explained why VP4 preferentially binds to a given actin subset. Three possible mechanisms have to be considered. (i) VP4 may bind to a brush border-specific actin isoform. This proposition is based on the fact that such an isoform, namely, ACT-5, has been very recently described to be specifically involved in apical actin polymerization in the intestinal brush border of Caenorhabditis elegans (30). Mammalian actin isoforms specific for brush border bundles have also been described (47, 49, 54) but it remains to be explored whether VP4 may develop such specific interactions with actin isoforms in intestinal cells. (ii) It has been shown, using FRAP experiments, that actin dynamics is rather slow in epithelial brush border actin bundles (52). In contrast, actin cytoskeleton is much more dynamic in structures like lamellipodia, in which actin very rapidly cycles between its polymerized and unpolymerized forms (60). Such differences in actin dynamics may influence the binding properties of VP4 in binding to actin. (iii) VP4 may interact with actin microfilaments through ABPs. There is an expanding number of proteins known to bind actin and to modify the dynamic properties of microfilaments (58). Among them, a subset of ABPs is involved in the control of actin bundle morphogenesis and dynamics that contains either cross-linking or bundling ABPs (2) or membrane linkers (5, 59). Therefore, interactions between VP4 and actin may interfere with the binding of an ABP and thus modify the fine tuning required to ensure an adequate microfilaments dynamics. Further studies are in progress to find out in an in vitro system the molecular determinants that may explain the original effect of VP4 on actin microfilaments.
Whatever the mechanisms by which VP4 interacts with actin bundles, this protein appears to be an original tool to specifically label and remodel this actin cytoskeleton subset.
Actin remodeling is essential for rotavirus infectivity. As mentioned earlier, a number of viruses required the integrity of actin microfilaments for efficient infectivity and/or viral replication. Therefore, cytochalasin D treatment frequently results in a decrease of viral infectivity for several viruses (for example, references 20 and 31). By contrast, it has been shown that a cytochalasin D treatment of rotavirus-infected MA 104 cells does not decrease its infectivity (9), which is consistent with our hypothesis. If cytochalasin D has no additional effect on the viral infectivity, it is probably because VP4 has already performed the necessary actin remodeling. The "proviral" role of actin network in rotavirus infection has also been explored on permissive and nonpermissive cell lines for this virus. Cytochalasin D was shown to transform non permissive L cells into permissive cells and to cause an increased viral infectivity. These experiments have shown that cytochalasin D had no effect on rotavirus binding and internalization by L cells but favors the completion of the virus cycle (3). We propose that this may be due to the fact that the drug would disorganize the subcortical actin cytoskeleton that normally acts as a physical barrier. Such a local disassembly of subcortical actin has been shown to be physiological and required to allow trafficking vesicles to access the membrane and favor the final steps of membrane fusion (15). In line with these observations, we propose that VP4 may use a similar strategy to perturb brush border actin and consequently favor the final step of virus assembly and release at the level of the apical pole of intestinal cells. This should not lead to an increased net virus production but simply make it possible for the virus to exit the brush border that is a highly resistant and well-organized membrane.
We previously showed that soon after infection of intestinal cells (since 4 h p.i.) and long before the assembly of new virions, VP4 is targeted to the apical membrane and is found associated with membrane microdomains enriched in cholesterol and sphingolipids, also termed rafts (46). It has also been demonstrated that other structural proteins later associate with VP4 within rafts at a time when rotaviruses start to assemble (10, 46). Together with these previous observations, the present results suggest a major role for VP4-actin interactions in the final steps of rotavirus assembly. In a first phase, actin microfilaments from the brush border may act as a reservoir for VP4 where other structural rotavirus proteins may later join to assemble as mature progeny virions. Then, in a second phase, VP4 may develop its remodeling activity, allowing a destabilization of the brush border membrane followed by rotavirus exit through a mechanism that could involve rafts. That brush border bundled actin and membrane microdomains may together play a crucial role in the final steps of apical trafficking for endogenous cellular proteins has been recently nicely demonstrated (53). Our results may thus provide a molecular explanation for a key feature of rotavirus infection in intestinal cells, i.e., brush border alterations such as shortening and constriction of the microvilli during rotavirus infection (34, 45) that may contribute both to nonlytic virus release (27) and to perturbations of epithelial functions (26, 55). To our knowledge, the peculiar VP4-induced actin microfilament remodeling described here is unique among currently identified actin-interacting proteins produced by pathogens and thus may likely represent a new viral strategy.
We acknowledge C. Sapin for the antibody production and M. Estes for critical reading of the manuscript. This work is dedicated to Jean Cohen, a friend and an outstanding scientist, who died too early.
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://jvi.asm.org/. ![]()
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»