Title |
Unlocking the potential of microbiome editing: A review of conjugation‐based delivery
|
---|---|
Published in |
Molecular Microbiology, September 2023
|
DOI | 10.1111/mmi.15147 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Pedro Dorado‐Morales, Morgan Lambérioux, Didier Mazel |
Abstract |
In recent decades, there has been a rapid increase in the prevalence of multidrug-resistant pathogens, posing a challenge to modern antibiotic-based medicine. This has highlighted the need for novel treatments that can specifically affect the target microorganism without disturbing other co-inhabiting species, thus preventing the development of dysbiosis in treated patients. Moreover, there is a pressing demand for tools to effectively manipulate complex microbial populations. One of the approaches suggested to address both issues was to use conjugation as a tool to modify the microbiome by either editing the genome of specific bacterial species and/or the removal of certain taxonomic groups. Conjugation involves the transfer of DNA from one bacterium to another, which opens up the possibility of introducing, modifying or deleting specific genes in the recipient. In response to this proposal, there has been a significant increase in the number of studies using this method for gene delivery in bacterial populations. This MicroReview aims to provide a detailed overview on the use of conjugation for microbiome engineering, and at the same time, to initiate a discussion on the potential, limitations and possible future directions of this approach. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
United States | 2 | 2% |
France | 2 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | 1% |
India | 1 | 1% |
Korea, Republic of | 1 | 1% |
Denmark | 1 | 1% |
Nigeria | 1 | 1% |
Ghana | 1 | 1% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 88 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 56 | 56% |
Scientists | 40 | 40% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 3% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 23% |
Researcher | 4 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
Professor | 1 | 5% |
Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
Other | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 27% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 18% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
Engineering | 1 | 5% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 8 | 36% |