Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Uropathogenic Escherichia coli and Fimbrial Adhesins Virulome

Written By

Payam Behzadi

Submitted: 10 May 2017 Reviewed: 29 September 2017 Published: 20 December 2017

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.71374

From the Edited Volume

Urinary Tract Infection

Edited by Tomas Jarzembowski, Agnieszka Daca and Maria Alicja Dębska-Ślizień

Chapter metrics overview

1,516 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Urinary tract infections (UTIs) rank second among infectious diseases around the world, and this makes them significant. There are many microbial agents which may cause UTIs. Enterobacteriaceae family members are recognized as important UTI bacterial causative agents. Among them, uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) pathotypes are considered as the most important bacterial agents of UTIs. Today, genomics and bioinformatics explain us why UPEC strains are so considerable pathogens regarding UTIs. There is a diversity of E. coli strains involving commensal and pathogenic strains. Genomics shows that commensal strains of E. coli encompass the minimal amount of genome and genetic elements among E. coli populations, whereas the pathotypes of E. coli possess the maximal or a big portion of genomic elements. Previous studies confirm the presence of a vast range of virulence genes within the pool of E. coli pathotypes like UPEC. So, the pool of virulence genes (virulome) belonging to UPEC enables UPEC pathotypes to have huge genomes with the ability of different levels of pathogenesis. The more virulence factors, the more pathogenicity. Due to the presence of a mass of virulence factors within UPEC cellular structures, well-known fimbrial adhesins in UPEC pathotypes are discussed in this chapter.


  • uropathogenic Escherichia coli
  • genomics
  • fimbriae
  • adhesins
  • virulence factors
  • urinary tract infections

1. Introduction

Every year, several million people suffer from urinary tract infections (UTIs), and of course it costs expensive for governments and healthcare medicine centres [1, 2].

UTIs with second ranking are one of the most dominant infectious diseases around the world. Although UTIs include vast etiological microbial agents, two pathogenic microorganisms such as Escherichia coli (E. coli) (as a predominant pioneer bacterial agent) and Candida albicans (C. albicans) (as a predominant pioneer fungal agent) are the most recognized UTI etiologic pathogens [3, 4, 5, 6].

The pangenomic and phylogenetic studies have revealed five different categories within the species of E. coli. These five categories involve A, B1, B2, D and E, which depending on their strains can cause extra- and intra-intestinal infections. The extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC) may lead to a vast range of infectious diseases. So, uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) represents one of the most important causative bacterial pathotypes of UTIs. Three phylogroups of A, B1 and E encompass intra-intestinal commensal and/or pathotypes of E. coli, whereas the B2 and D phylogroups involve, respectively, the most and the least numbers of UPEC pathotypes [7, 8].

1.1. Biology of urinary tract infections

There are different types of UTIs with a diversity of clinical demonstrations. Today, we know that the UTI syndromes are completely in association with hosts’ immune system activities, type of causative microbial agent and the contributed microbial virulence factors. UTIs may be appeared as acute or chronic lower (typically known as cystitis) and/or upper (typically known as pyelonephritis) urinary tract infections, with symptomatic or asymptomatic manifestations and complicated or uncomplicated demonstrations. So, asymptomatic bacteriuria and simple cystitis with some ignorable irritations may be recognized as light and mild UTIs, respectively; while the urosepsis is known as a serious deathful type of UTI. Generally, the uncomplicated UTIs are recognized in patients with no previous background for UTIs, whereas the complicated UTIs normally happen in patients with previous problems in their urinary tracts. The remarkable point of view is the association between predisposing factors of diabetes, sexual intercourse, gender, catheterization, pregnancy, overweight, genetic factors, host’s immune system responses and the type of UTIs and their severities [3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

In accordance with previous surveys, there are several numbers of microbial pathogens which can be identified as UTI pathogenic microorganisms. The microbial pathogens depending on the type of UTIs involve a vast number of pathogenic causative agents including Gram-negative bacteria, e.g. UPEC, Klebsiella spp., Enterobacter spp., Proteus spp., Citrobacter spp., Morganella morganii, Acinetobacter spp., Salmonella spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus (methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) and/or methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)), Staphylococcus epidermidis (methicillin-sensitive S. epidermidis (MSSE) and/or methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE)), Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Streptococcus spp., Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus faecalis, diphtheroids and Corynebacterium urealyticum and fungal agents like C. albicans, Candida glabrata and Candida tropicalis. As aforementioned, some pathogens are predominant in complicated UTIs, and some others are responsible for uncomplicated UTIs; however, the UPEC strains are common causative agents in both types of complicated and uncomplicated UTIs. Moreover, the presence of living microbial cells determines the condition of UTIs. The usual threshold for UTI pathogens is estimated ≥105 living cells per urine millilitre (ml). As each living cell can grow and create its own colony, the 105 cells can be construed as 105 colony-forming units (CFUs). But we have to notice that, in some cases, the aforementioned threshold must be counted less than 105 CFUs/ml [3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].

1.2. The genus of Escherichia: A great bacterial empire

The genus of Escherichia includesE. albertii, E. coli, E. fergusonii, E. hermannii, E. marmotae and E. vulneris. The familiarity of these species is shown in Figure 1. In addition to these species, there are some Escherichia strains which have no differences in their phenotypes; but from the genotypic aspects, they have different characteristics. These strains are named as cryptic clades, which are branched into five strains of C-I to C-V [15, 16, 17, 18].

Figure 1.

The genome of uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) has been compared with E. albertii, E. fergusonii, E. marmotae and Evulneris by the online GView Server system. The figure indicates genomic familiarities between the Escherichia species. As shown, the species of E. marmotae and E. vulneris have very close genomic similarities with UPEC, whereas there is some dissimilarity between genomic treasures of E. albertii, E. fergusonii and UPEC (GView Server;

E. coli is the most famous member of Gram-negative bacterial family of Enterobacteriaceae which was identified by Theodor Escherich. This non-spore forming and generally motile (with a peritrichous flagellated arrangement) facultative anaerobic rod-shaped bacterium was named E. coli by the suggestion of Castellani and Chalmers in 1919 [7, 19, 20]. There are a diversity of E. coli strains which are divided into commensal types (intra-intestinal non-pathogenic strains) and pathotypes (intra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (InPEC) and extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC)). The commensal types of E. coli are able to be settled within the infants’ alimentary canal just in some hours after birth as beneficial normal flora populations [21, 22].

The E. coli pathotypes are divided into a vast range of strains which may cause different types of infectious diseases. Table 1 indicates the pathotypes and their related infections. In accordance with the table, the pathotypes have been divided into three groups: ExPEC, InPEC and ShiToPInPEC. Phylogenetic studies show a close relationship between Shigella spp. and E. coli. A close genetic similarity is recognized between Shigella spp. and enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) pathotypes [4, 7, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30].

Table 1.

The categorization of E. coli pathotypes, the related infections and the condition of appearance.


2. Escherichia coli and pangenomics

E. coli is a quite diverse genus which involves a vast range of strains with different metabolic properties, pathogenesis, genomic treasure, virulence factors and ecological varieties. These characteristics make E. coli an important case in association with infectious diseases. The E. coli strains range from commensal strains (useful normal flora) to AIEC, DAEC, EAEC, EHEC, EIEC, EPEC, ETEC, NEMEC, SEPEC and UPEC pathotypes. The characteristic diversities among E. coli strains are completely pertaining to their specific pangenomes. The type of genes and the gene pool of microorganisms determine the quality and the quantity of genetic evolutionary properties [4, 7, 22].

The term pangenome was applied by Sigaux for a database with the content of tissues and tumour genomic data; but the application of pangenome with its microbial content was used by Tettelin and colleagues for the first time, and this refers to a collection of genes and genetic elements in a family group which can be recognized among species of a genus. According to genomic studies, each microbial genus encompasses a main genomic pool which is known as core genome. The core genome contains all those vital genes belonging to different species of a microbial genus. In addition to core genome, there is a group of genomic materials pertaining to species members of a genus which is named as extra genome (flexible or accessory genome). Sometimes some accessory genome pools contain unique genes which are completely related to specific strain. The extra genome possesses genes that are vital but varies in different genome pools. Some genera bear closed pangenomes, whereas the others contain open pangenomes. The open pangenomic microbial organisms involve a vast range of strains. In parallel with molecular techniques, bioinformatics has a key role in pangenomics. Computational analyses give us brilliant information regarding chromosomal genes and motile genetic elements such as plasmids, transposons and phages. Today, the bacterial genus of E. coli is known as the most progressive prokaryote with the highest detected genomic sets [7, 31, 32, 33, 34].

The complete genomic data regarding E. coli (K12 strain) was reported in 1997 for the first time. Due to the recent aforementioned information regarding E. coli genomics, we now know that each strain comprises core genome, accessory genome (extra genome and/or flexible genome) and some unique genes which are specific for each strain. Furthermore, the accessory genomic pool which is flexible may contain integrons, pathogenicity islands (PAIs), phages, plasmids, prophages and transposons. The presence of these genomic elements is related to the nature of the environment in which bacterial cells exist. So, the size of genome is completely dependent on the habitat of bacteria. In another word, the condition of genomic pool and sequence of the genome determine the biological characteristics of the bacteria. Therefore, genomics of E. coli strains reveal the needs of them in their own habitats [7, 23, 35].

The reported results from previous studies show that the commensal strains of E. coli bear the smallest pangenome (with no virulence genes or with minimal capacity), whereas the pathogenic strains of E. coli like UPEC pathotypes encompass large pangenomes (because of the presence of a mass of virulence genes). So, the added genes in pathotype pangenomes are recognized as virulence genes (virulome). It is estimated that UPEC pathotypes carry 105 bp much more than commensal strains within their pangenomes. This property gives a high plasticity to UPEC pathotype pangenomes. As shown in published reports, the pangenome of E. coli strains involve 4.6–5.9 Mbp and the chromosomal genomes are consisted of limited number of genes [7, 23, 26, 36].

Table 2 shows a number of well-known databases in which the genomic data regarding E. coli genomes are accessible.

Database The main subject URL Reference
EcoCyc E. coli Database Escherichia coli
K-12 MG1655 [37, 38]
EcoGene 3.0 Escherichia coli K-12 [39]
Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes
Genes, genomes, etc.
SHared Information of GENetic Resources (SHIGEN) The profiling of Escherichia coli chromosome
(PEC) database [41]
Pfam 31.0 Protein family database [42]
Ensembl Genomes
(The European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI))
Genomes [43]
The DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ) Nucleotide sequence database [44]
(National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI))
Nucleotide sequence database [45]

Table 2.

Some useful and helpful databases which can be used for Escherichia coli pangenome.

The pangenomic studies reveal an interesting evolutionary relationship between E. coli, Shigella spp. and Salmonella enterica. It seems that E. coli is the ancestor of Shigella spp. The Shigella spp. have derivated from E. coli pathotypes within a duration of 270,000–35,000 years, whereas the origination of E. coli and S. enterica bacteria from a common progenitor goes back to 100,000,000 years ago [4, 46] (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

A chromosomal comparison between UPEC (UTI89), Shigella sp. and Salmonella enterica. The GC content and GC skew are shown, too (GView Server;


3. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC)

The UTIs are divided into community-acquired and nosocomial infectious diseases. The UPEC pathotypes are the most dominant causative bacterial agents of UTIs. As previous investigations show, about 50% of nosocomial and up to 95% of community-acquired UTIs are occurred by UPEC strains. So, the UPEC pathotypes are one of the most considered UTI causative agents worldwide. These reports lead us to a wide variety of virulence factors in UPEC pathotypes. Besides, the bioinformatic approaches and pangenomics confirm the presence of a giant treasure of virulence genes within the pangenome of UPEC [7, 8, 35, 47].

The spread of virulence genes among UPEC pathotypes is quite different. The range of UTIs varies from ignorable cases like asymptomatic bacteriuria to deathful cases like urosepsis. The severity of UTIs is completely in association with the UPEC virulence gene pool (virulome). Sometimes, pathotypes undergo mutations in their hosts’ bodies which may lead to lose their own virulence genes. It seems that the UPEC pathotypes, which may cause asymptomatic bacteriuria, have undergone virulence gene deletions. On the other hand, strong uropathogenic strains encompass a mass of virulence genes which enable them to occur severe UTIs within their hosts’ bodies. The occurrence of UTIs is associated with the host’s genetic predisposing factors, immune system, gender, hospitalization, catheterization, social behaviour, sexual activities, personal hygiene and the presence of virulence factors in uropathogenic microbial agents [3, 7, 11, 13, 22, 48, 49, 50].

The outcomes of several studies reveal the presence of a huge number of virulence factors which have been expanded among different strains of UPEC. Here, the most considerable virulence factors are mentioned and the most considerable filamentous adhesins are explained one by one.


4. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) virulome

The severity of UPEC pathogenesis is completely in association with diversity of virulence genes in their pangenomes. Figure 3 shows the pangenome of UTI89. The virulence genes may be located on chromosomes (added through vertical gene transfer) or plasmids, transposons, integrons and phages (added via horizontal gene transfers). Previous studies indicate that the majority of virulence genes belonging to UPEC are located on pathogenicity islands (PAIs) where many of genes are transferred from other species rather than E. coli through the feature of horizontal genomic exchange. UPEC pathotypes are effective pathogens due to their high capacity of virulome. The diversity of virulence factors enables UPEC to manifest different types of UTIs in their human hosts. Adhesion, immune system escape mechanisms, iron uptake systems, protease enzymes and toxins are the most significant mechanisms that UPEC pathotypes should utilize them to survive in the human host urinary tract [22, 51, 52, 53].

Figure 3.

The pangenome map (chromosomal and plasmid genomes) of UPEC (UTI89). The GC content and GC skew are shown, too (GView Server;

Because of the vast variety of pathogenicity potentials in UPEC strains, only hair-like structures of afimbrial adhesins (including curli and Afa) and fimbrial adhesins (comprising Dr, Type 1 fimbriae, Type 3 fimbriae, F1C fimbriae, S fimbriae, P fimbriae, Auf and F9 fimbriae) are discussed in this chapter. There are some useful databases such as Center for Genomic Epidemiology ( and Virulence Factors of Pathogenic Bacteria ( which may be used for detection and identification virulence genes within the E. coli strain populations’ genomes [54].

4.1. Filamentous adhesin virulome

Each microorganism either pathogen or non-pathogen needs to be adhered for colonization. Indeed, colonization of pathogenic microorganisms results in pathogenesis within human body’s host. For this reason, UPEC has a range of superficial proteins and adhesins (Table 3). However the hair-like structured fimbriae are invaluable virulence factors which enable UPEC pathotypes to have successful attachment, colonization, biofilm formation and virulence [7, 22, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65].

Table 3.

The UPEC fimbrial and afimbrial adhesins and their characteristics within human bodies [7, 22, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71].

Fimbrial adhesins are superficial peritrichous arranged exterior proteinaceous appendages which target special motifs upon the cell surface receptors to join them in the manner of key-and-lock operation. These adhesins are able to attach onto biotic (e.g. host cells) and abiotic (e.g. catheter) surfaces. The aforementioned characteristics make UPEC bacteria functional and effective pathogenic microorganisms. The attachment of bacterial cells of UPEC onto the host cells is a complicated process which may be caused by important proteinaceous molecules of adhesins. Adhesins prepare suitable condition for a successful signalling controlled communication between UPEC cells and human body cells. In other words, the fimbrial adhesins act as signal molecules. As shown in Table 3, the most studied and recognized superficial filamentous adhesins are Curli, Dr, AFA, Type 1 fimbriae, Type 3 fimbriae, F1C fimbriae, S fimbriae, P fimbriae, F9 fimbriae and Auf. Some of these superficial fimbrial organelles involving F1C, P, S, Auf, Type 1, Type 3 and F9 fimbriae are categorized into chaperone-usher (CU) proteins [8, 27, 53, 59, 62, 66].

4.1.1. Curli adhesins

Curli adhesins of UPEC are known as types of fragile exterior proteinous coiled fibrous appendages which contribute in linking the UPEC cells onto related receptors situated upon the human body cells such as endothelial cells, epithelial cells, matrix proteins, urothelial cells, mucosal cells, blood cells, etc. In addition to UPEC pathotypes, curli adhesins are recognized in Salmonella spp. too. The affinity between curli organelles and Congo red makes it easy to observe these tiny adhesins by microscope. Curli adhesins with up to 12 nm width and 1 μm length are made of CsgA (curlin as major content with amyloid property) and CsgB (as minor content with amyloid property and nucleator activity) proteins. The highly conserved curli gene clusters in UPEC pathotypes are organized into csgBAC and csgDEFG operons. Curli molecules are effective structures to adhere UPEC cells onto the urine bladder and kidney urothelial cells within human bodies [50, 52, 53, 57, 67, 68, 69] (Table 3).

4.1.2. Dr/Afa adhesins

The Dr and Afa adhesins are the members of DR family. Dr adhesins (with a homology rate of ≥70%) and Afa molecules are able to bind to the Dra blood group antigen molecules situated onto the decay-accelerating factors (DAFs). The DAF molecules are located upon the surface of different types of cells such as urothelial cells. The Dr gene operons consisted of five genes, including draA–draE, which are detectable in 7% of the UPEC populations. The draE gene is responsible for Dr haemagglutinin production, which is contributed in type IV collagen attachment. draA–draG genes are highly conserved and produce the accessory proteins, whereas the draE genes with lower conserved sequences are responsible for adhesin structural subunits. Moreover, the AFA adhesins are encoded by a five-member gene operon including afaA, afaE, afaD, afaB and afaC. The proteins of AFAI and AFAIII are known as Dr family members. In accordance with previous studies, some of Dr and AFA adhesins have close similarities with chaperone-usher pathway adhesins. The AFA adhesins are recognized in up to 65% of UPEC pathotypes causing cystitis, 26% causing pyelonephritis and 6% asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU) [7, 8, 22, 55, 61, 70, 71] (Table 3).

4.2. Chaperone-usher fimbrial adhesins

There are varieties of fimbriae which are produced by Gram-negative bacteria such as Enterobacteriaceae family members. The subunits of these fimbriae are assembled by different pathways like CU pathway. Those fimbriae produced via CU pathway are the most frequent filamentous organelles among Gram-negative bacteria populations. The CU pathway is a kind of common bacterial secretion system with a high conservancy. In a fimbrial CU pathway, chaperone (a periplasmic protein molecule) together with a pore-forming protein of usher (situated within bacterial outer membrane) orchestrate this secretion system. So through the CU pathway, the usher protein plays its role as platform assembler by employing a chaperone to produce and secrete subunits of CU fimbriae class. F1C, P, S, Auf, Type 1, Type 3 and F9 fimbriae in UPEC pathotypes are known as CU pathway proteinaceous adhesins [62, 66, 72, 73, 74, 75] (Table 3).

4.2.1. Type 1 fimbriae

Type 1 fimbriae as mannose-sensitive adhesins (belonging to chaperone-usher class) are able to attach to those receptors with mannose residues. Uroplakin molecules with high frequency in human urine bladder are known as one of the most important Type 1 fimbriae receptors. Furthermore, there are different types of Type 1 fimbriae receptors which are located on human ureter and Henle’s tubules. These fimbriae are encoded in 99% of commensal and pathogenic strains of E. coli including UPEC pathotypes. As important virulence factors, Type 1 fimbriae have peripheral arrangement upon the microorganisms’ surfaces with a number of 1–5 hundred. Type 1 fimbriae with up to 10 nm width and up to 2 μm length are able to perform haemagglutination. The Type 1 fimbriae are encoded by the highly conserved gene operon consisted of nine genes of fimBEAICDFGH. The FimH protein which is located on the top of Type 1 fimbria is recognized as the main adhesin. FimG, Fim F and FimA protein molecules are, respectively, situated under the FimH molecule. FimC and FimD play their roles as chaperone and usher proteins, respectively. The recombinase enzymes of FimB and FimE activate as bidirectional switching molecules for turning on and/or turning off the cluster gene expression. The activities of FimB and FimE are directly associated with environmental factors [7, 22, 50, 53, 55, 60, 62, 68, 71, 74, 76, 77] (Table 3).

4.2.2. Type 3 fimbriae

Type 3 fimbriae are encoded by mrk gene operon of mrkABCDEF in UPEC and other members of Enterobacteriaceae family such as Klebsiella pneumoniae. The highly conserved gene of mrkB encodes chaperone protein of MrkB, whereas the MrkC plays role as usher protein. MrkA and MrkF are the major and minor subunits in Type 3 fimbriae, respectively. The adhesin molecule of Type 3 fimbria is recognized as MrkD and MrkE plays its role as a regulator protein. It seems that mrk gene cluster originally belongs to K. pneumoniae which has been horizontally transferred into UPEC pathotypes by plasmids. The role of Type 3 fimbriae in biofilm formation regarding catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTs) is significantly considered [53, 56] (Table 3).

4.2.3. F1C fimbriae

The F1C fimbriae are encoded by a gene operon consisting of seven genes of focAICDFGH. F1C fimbriae are expressed by up to 30% of UPEC pathotypes. The F1C fimbria is composed of FocA (major fimbrin subunits), FocF and FocG (minor fimbrin subunits) proteins. On the top of F1C fimbria, FocH monomer is located which acts as an adhesin. So, F1C fimbriae adhere onto the receptors with galactosylceramide (situated on the surfaces of urothelial cells of the urinary bladder, kidneys and ureters) and globotriaosylceramide (located in kidneys) residues. Previous surveys indicate a strong attraction between F1C fimbriae and Gal-NAc-beta-1-4-Gal-beta structure of glycolipids. FocC and FocD proteins are recognized as chaperone and usher molecules, respectively. Due to prior scientific investigations, the F1C fimbriae are able to bind to their specific receptors upon the whole zone of the urinary tract. There is a close homology between F1C and S fimbriae [7, 53, 55, 62, 66, 78] (Table 3).

4.2.4. S fimbriae

In addition to FIC, the S fimbriae organelles have also a close morphology to F9, P and Type 1 fimbriae and are detected in ≥22% of the UPEC pathotypes. The S fimbriae are encoded by sfa gene operon with nine genes. SfaA, SfaS and SfaH proteins contribute in S fimbrial adhesion. The SfaA protein is a dominant subunit, and the minor subunits are composed of SfaG, SfaH and SfaS. SfaS is located on the top of S fimbriae and adhere to alpha-sialyl-2,3-alpha-galactose residues upon the glycoproteins of urothelial tissues of the urinary bladder and kidneys. The presence or absence of S fimbriae is determined by environmental factors. The related regulations and phase variations are done by SfaB and SfaC [7, 22, 35, 50, 53, 55, 62, 66, 71, 77, 79] (Table 3).

4.2.5. P fimbriae

P fimbriae as considerable adhesins are encoded by 11 genes within a gene operon of papA-K in up to 70% of UPEC pathotypes. The predominant subunit in P fimbria is PapA fimbrin placed in the basis of the fimbrial stalk. PapG is known as the main adhesin which is linked to the stalk by PapE, PapF and PapK proteins. PapD and PapC have chaperone and usher roles, respectively. There are some isoclasses for PapG (PapGI, PapGII (major isoclass in UPEC strains) and PapGIII) in different UPEC pathotypes. The related receptor epitopes of P fimbriae are alpha-D-galactopyranosyl-(1-4)-beta-D-galactopyranoside which are located on the surface of entire urothelial cells covering the human urinary tract. P fimbriae are recognized as significant virulence factors in UPEC virulome [7, 22, 50, 53, 62, 66, 71, 77] (Table 3).

4.2.6. Auf fimbriae

Auf (acronym for another UPEC fimbria) fimbriae are detected in 67% of isolated UPEC pathotypes. The Auf fimbriae are encoded by the gene operon of aufABCDEFG. AufA protein is predominant subunit in Auf fimbria, whereas AufC is known as an usher protein. The Auf protein receptors are still unknown in human body cells [7, 22, 53, 62, 74] (Table 3).

4.2.7. F9 fimbriae

The F9 fimbriae encoded by f9 gene operon including c1931–c1936 are detectable in 78% of UPEC populations. The C1931 protein is the major subunit identified in F9 fimbriae. The genetic and structural characteristics of F9 fimbriae are very close to Type 1, F1C and S fimbriae. Gal-beta-(1-3)-Glc-NAc and lacto-N-tetraose glycans are recognized as the main F9 fimbriae receptors [22, 53, 59, 60] (Table 3).


5. Diagnostic methods for virulence genes of filamentous adhesins

Detection and identification of genes such as virulence genes of filamentous adhesins may be achieved by a vast range of molecular techniques. PCR tools from conventional and multiplex to real time are the commonest molecular diagnostic techniques which can be used for limited samples [80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86].

Furthermore there are advanced pangenomic techniques like microarray technology which can be applied for detection and identification of different types of genes, when there are huge numbers of specimens. Microarray technology is divided into three types of DNA, protein and RNA microarray tools. The outcome of microarray technology is reliable, sensitive, specific, flexible and rapid with high accuracy [4, 7, 8, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93].


6. Conclusion

UPEC strains are expanded pathogenic microorganisms which are able to carry a mass of virulence genes within their genomes. The environmental condition and the genomic abilities and capacity determine the expression of virulence genes and factors. The UPEC strains bear different types of virulence factors in different parts of their cellular structures. These properties make UPEC pathotypes interesting pathogenic microorganisms which can appear a vast range of UTIs: from acute to chronic, from light to severe, from complicated to uncomplicated, from lower to upper and from asymptomatic to symptomatic signs and syndromes. So, knowing the genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of UPEC strains in different regions of world helps us to recognize the probable UPEC strains with their local clinical demonstrations. This enables us to have an accurate diagnosis with a definite treatment to reduce the healthcare costs around the world. Moreover, equipped microbiology laboratories with normal molecular tools and techniques like PCR or advanced pangenomic technologies support us to have specific, sensitive and reliable outcome.


  1. 1. Ciani O, Grassi D, Tarricone R. An economic perspective on urinary tract infection: The “costs of resignation”. Clinical Drug Investigation. 2013;33:255-261. DOI: 10.1007/s40261-013-0069-x
  2. 2. Kucheria R, Dasgupta P, Sacks S, Khan M, Sheerin N. Urinary tract infections: New insights into a common problem. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2005;81:83-86. DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.2004.023036
  3. 3. Behzadi P, Behzadi E. The microbial agents of urinary tract infections at central laboratory of Dr. Shariati hospital, Tehran, Iran. Turkiye Kliniklire Tip Bilim. 2008;28:445-449
  4. 4. Behzadi P, Najafi A, Behzadi E, Ranjbar R. Microarray long oligo probe designing for Escherichia coli: An in-silico DNA marker extraction. Central European Journal of Urology. 2016;69:105-111. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2016.654
  5. 5. Behzadi E, Behzadi P. The role of toll-like receptors (TLRs) in urinary tract infections (UTIs). Central European Journal of Urology. 2016;69:404-410. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2016.871
  6. 6. Behzadi P, Behzadi E, Ranjbar R. Urinary tract infections and Candida albicans. Central European Journa of Urology. 2015;68:96-101. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2015.01.474
  7. 7. Jahandeh N, Ranjbar R, Behzadi P, Behzadi E. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli virulence genes: Invaluable approaches for designing DNA microarray probes. Central European Journal of Urology. 2015;68:452-458. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2015.625
  8. 8. Behzadi P, Behzadi E. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli: An Ideal Resource for DNA Microarray Probe Designing. In: Rojas I, Ortuño F, editors. Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering. 5th IWBBIO 2017. Lecture notes in computer science part II, vol 10209. Cham: Springer; 2017. pp. 12-19. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56154-7_2
  9. 9. Schwab S, Jobin K, Kurts C. Urinary tract infection: recent insight into the evolutionary arms race between uropathogenic Escherichia coli and our immune system. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;gfx022:1-7. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfx022
  10. 10. Johansen TB, Bonkat G, Cai T, Tandogdu Z, Wagenlehner F, Grabe M. Grey zones in the field of urinary tract infections. European Urology Focus. 2016;2:460-462. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.03.012
  11. 11. Flores-Mireles AL, Walker JN, Caparon M, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: Epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2015;13:269-284. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro3432
  12. 12. Kline KA, Lewis AL. Gram-positive uropathogens, polymicrobial urinary tract infection, and the emerging microbiota of the urinary tract. Microbiology spectrum. 2016;4(2). DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.UTI-0012-2012
  13. 13. Behzadi P, Behzadi E, Yazdanbod H, Aghapour R, Cheshmeh MA, Omran DS. A survey on urinary tract infections associated with the three most common uropathogenic bacteria. Maedica. 2010;5:111-5
  14. 14. Brubaker L, Wolfe AJ. The female urinary microbiota/microbiome: Clinical and research implications. Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal. 2017;8:e0015. DOI: 10.5041/RMMJ.10292
  15. 15. Liu S, Jin D, Lan R, Wang Y, Meng Q, Dai H, et al. Escherichia marmotae sp. nov., isolated from faeces of Marmota Himalayana. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2015;65:2130-2134. DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.000228
  16. 16. Clermont O, Gordon DM, Brisse S, Walk ST, Denamur E. Characterization of the cryptic Escherichia lineages: Rapid identification and prevalence. Environmental Microbiology. 2011;13:2468-2477. DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02519.x
  17. 17. Ooka T, Ogura Y, Katsura K, Seto K, Kobayashi H, Kawano K, et al. Defining the genome features of Escherichia albertii, an emerging enteropathogen closely related to Escherichia coli. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2015;7:3170-3179. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evv211
  18. 18. NCBI > Genomes & Maps > Genome > Escherichia [Internet]. NCBI. Available from: [Accessed: 2017-08-23]
  19. 19. Etymologia: Escherichia coli. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal. 2015;21:1310. DOI: 10.3201/eid2108.ET2108
  20. 20. Schaechter M Editor. Desk Encyclopedia of Microbiology. 2nd ed. Academic press, Elsevier, UK; 2010
  21. 21. Kaper JB, Nataro JP, Mobley HL. Pathogenic Escherichia coli. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2004;2:123-140. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro818
  22. 22. Donnenberg M. Escherichia coli: Pathotypes and principles of pathogenesis. 2nd ed. Academic press, Elsevier, UK; 2013
  23. 23. Robins-Browne RM, Holt KE, Ingle DJ, Hocking DM, Yang J, Tauschek M. Are Escherichia coli Pathotypes still relevant in the era of whole-genome sequencing? Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2016;6:141. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2016.00141
  24. 24. Rossi E, Cimdins A, Lüthje P, Brauner A, Sjöling Å, Landini P, et al. “It’s a gut feeling”–Escherichia coli biofilm formation in the gastrointestinal tract environment. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. 2017:1-30. DOI: 10.1080/1040841X.2017.1303660
  25. 25. Leimbach A, Hacker J, Dobrindt U. E. coli as an all-rounder: The thin line between commensalism and pathogenicity. In: Dobrindt U, Hacker J, Svanborg C. (eds) Between Pathogenicity and Commensalism. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 1st ed. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2013;358:3-32. DOI: 10.1007/82_2012_30
  26. 26. Croxen MA, Finlay BB. Molecular mechanisms of Escherichia coli pathogenicity. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2010;8:26-38. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2265
  27. 27. Servin AL. Pathogenesis of human diffusely adhering Escherichia coli expressing Afa/Dr adhesins (Afa/Dr DAEC): Current insights and future challenges. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2014;27:823-869. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00036-14
  28. 28. da Silva LC, de Mello Santos AC, Silva RM. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli pathogenicity islands and other ExPEC virulence genes may contribute to the genome variability of enteroinvasive E. coli. BMC Microbiology. 2017;17:68. DOI: 10.1186/s12866-017-0979-5
  29. 29. Nash JH, Villegas A, Kropinski AM, Aguilar-Valenzuela R, Konczy P, Mascarenhas M, et al. Genome sequence of adherent-invasive Escherichia coli and comparative genomic analysis with other E. coli pathotypes. BMC Genomics. 2010;11:667. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-667
  30. 30. O’brien CL, Bringer M-A, Holt KE, Gordon DM, Dubois AL, Barnich N, et al. Comparative genomics of Crohn9s disease-associated adherent-invasive Escherichia coli. Gut 2016;0:1-8. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311059
  31. 31. McInerney JO, McNally A, O’Connell MJ. Why prokaryotes have pangenomes. Natural Microbiology. 2017;2:17040. DOI: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.40
  32. 32. Snipen L-G, Ussery DW. A domain sequence approach to pangenomics: Applications to Escherichia coli. F1000Res. 2012;1:19. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.1-19.v2
  33. 33. Rouli L, Merhej V, Fournier P-E, Raoult D. The bacterial pangenome as a new tool for analysing pathogenic bacteria. NMNI. 2015;7:72-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.nmni.2015.06.005
  34. 34. Marschall T, Marz M, Abeel T, Dijkstra L, Dutilh BE, Ghaffaari A, et al. Computational pan-genomics: Status, promises and challenges. BioRxiv. 2016;043430. DOI: 10.1101/043430
  35. 35. Lo AW, Moriel DG, Phan M-D, Schulz BL, Kidd TJ, Beatson SA, et al. ‘Omic’Approaches to study Uropathogenic Escherichia coli virulence. Trends in Microbiology. 2017;25:729-740. DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2017.04.006
  36. 36. Terlizzi ME, Gribaudo G, Maffei ME. UroPathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) infections: Virulence factors, bladder responses, antibiotic, and non-antibiotic antimicrobial strategies. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8:1566. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01566
  37. 37. Karp P, Weaver D, Paley S, Fulcher C, Kubo A, Kothari A, et al. The EcoCyc Database. EcoSal Plus. 2014;6:10.1128/ecosalplus.ESP-0009-2013. DOI: 10.1128/ecosalplus.ESP-0009-2013
  38. 38. Keseler IM, Collado-Vides J, Santos-Zavaleta A, Peralta-Gil M, Gama-Castro S, Muñiz-Rascado L, et al. EcoCyc: A comprehensive database of Escherichia coli biology. Nucleic Acids Research. 2010;39:D583-DD90. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq1143
  39. 39. Zhou J, Rudd KE. EcoGene 3.0. Nucleic Acids Research. 2013;41:D613-D624. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks1235
  40. 40. Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M, Sato Y, Morishima K. KEGG: New perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Research. 2017;45:D353-D361. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw1092
  41. 41. Yamazaki Y, Niki H, Kato J. Profiling of Escherichia coli Chromosome Database. In: Osterman AL, Gerdes SY. (eds) Microbial Gene Essentiality: Protocols and Bioinformatics. Methods in Molecular Biology™. 1st ed. Humana Press, New Jersey, USA; 2008;416:385-389. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-59745-321-9_26
  42. 42. Finn RD, Coggill P, Eberhardt RY, Eddy SR, Mistry J, Mitchell AL, et al. The Pfam protein families database: Towards a more sustainable future. Nucleic Acids Research. 2016;44:D279-D285. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv1344
  43. 43. Kersey PJ, Allen JE, Armean I, Boddu S, Bolt BJ, Carvalho-Silva D, et al. Ensembl genomes 2016: More genomes, more complexity. Nucleic Acids Research. 2015;44:D574-D580. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv1209
  44. 44. Mashima J, Kodama Y, Fujisawa T, Katayama T, Okuda Y, Kaminuma E, et al. DNA data bank of Japan. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D25-D31. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw1001
  45. 45. Benson DA, Cavanaugh M, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Research. 2017;45:D37-D42. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw1070
  46. 46. Gordienko EN, Kazanov MD, Gelfand MS. Evolution of pan-genomes of Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., and Salmonella enterica. Journal of Bacteriology. 2013;195:2786-2792. DOI: 10.1128/JB.02285-12
  47. 47. Wiles TJ, Kulesus RR, Mulvey MA. Origins and virulence mechanisms of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Experimental and Molecular Pathology. 2008;85:11-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2008.03.007
  48. 48. Salvador E, Wagenlehner F, Köhler C-D, Mellmann A, Hacker J, Svanborg C, et al. Comparison of asymptomatic bacteriuria Escherichia coli isolates from healthy individuals versus those from hospital patients shows that long-term bladder colonization selects for attenuated virulence phenotypes. Infection and Immunity. 2012;80:668-678. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.06191-11
  49. 49. Zdziarski J, Brzuszkiewicz E, Wullt B, Liesegang H, Biran D, Voigt B, et al. Host imprints on bacterial genomes—Rapid, divergent evolution in individual patients. PLoS pathogens. 2010;6(8):e1001078). DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001078
  50. 50. Kot B. Virulence factors and innovative strategies for the treatment and control of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. In: Samie A. Escherichia coli-Recent Advances on Physiology, Pathogenesis and Biotechnological Applications. 1st ed. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia; 2017. DOI: 10.5772/67778
  51. 51. Torres AG. Escherichia coli in the Americas. 1st ed. Springer, Switzerland; 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-45092-6
  52. 52. Subashchandrabose S, Mobley HLT. Virulence and fitness determinants of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Microbiology spectrum. 2015;3:10.1128/microbiolspec.UTI-0015-2012. DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.UTI-0015-2012
  53. 53. Klemm P, Hancock V, Schembri MA. Fimbrial adhesins from extraintestinal Escherichia coli. Environmental Microbiology Reports. 2010;2:628-640. DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2010.00166.x
  54. 54. Quainoo S, Coolen JP, van Hijum SA, Huynen MA, Melchers WJ, van Schaik W, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of bacterial pathogens: The future of nosocomial outbreak analysis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 2017;30:1015-1063. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00016-17
  55. 55. Virulence Factors of Pathogenic Bacteria: MOH Key Laboratory of Systems Biology of Pathogens, Institute of Pathogen Biology, CAMS&PUMC, Bejing, China; [Internet]. 2017. Available from: [Accessed: 2017-08-23]
  56. 56. Ong C-LY, Ulett GC, Mabbett AN, Beatson SA, Webb RI, Monaghan W, et al. Identification of type 3 fimbriae in uropathogenic Escherichia coli reveals a role in biofilm formation. Journal of Bacteriology. 2008;190:1054-1063. DOI: 10.1128/JB.01523-07
  57. 57. Cordeiro MA, Werle CH, Milanez GP, Yano T. Curli fimbria: An Escherichia coli adhesin associated with human cystitis. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 2016;47:414-416. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.01.024
  58. 58. Klemm P, Schembri M. Type 1 fimbriae, Curli, and antigen 43: Adhesion, colonization, and biofilm formation. EcoSal Plus. 2004;1. DOI: 10.1128/ecosalplus.
  59. 59. Ulett GC, Mabbett AN, Fung KC, Webb RI, Schembri MA. The role of F9 fimbriae of uropathogenic Escherichia coli in biofilm formation. Microbiology. 2007;153:2321-2331. DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.2006/004648-0
  60. 60. Wurpel DJ, Totsika M, Allsopp LP, Hartley-Tassell LE, Day CJ, Peters KM, et al. F9 fimbriae of uropathogenic Escherichia coli are expressed at low temperature and recognise Galβ1-3GlcNAc-containing glycans. PLoS One. 2014;9:e93177. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093177
  61. 61. Emo L, Kerenyi M, Nagy G. Virulence factors of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2003;22:29-33. DOI: 10.1016/S0924-8579(03)00236-X
  62. 62. Spurbeck RR, Stapleton AE, Johnson JR, Walk ST, Hooton TM, Mobley HL. Fimbrial profiles predict virulence of uropathogenic Escherichia coli strains: Contribution of ygi and yad fimbriae. Infection and immunity. 2011;79:4753-4763. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05621-11
  63. 63. Profiling of Escherichia coli chromosome (PEC) database; Japan: National Institute of Genetics. 1998-2016 ed. Availabl from: [Accessed: 2017-08-23]
  64. 64. Fernández-Romero N, Romero-Gómez MP, Mora-Rillo M, Rodríguez-Baño J, López-Cerero L, Pascual Á, et al. Uncoupling between core genome and virulome in extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2015;61:647-652. DOI: 10.1139/cjm-2014-0835
  65. 65. Behzadi P, Behzadi E. Environmental Microbiology. 1st ed. Tehran: Niktab Publisher; 2007
  66. 66. Wurpel DJ, Beatson SA, Totsika M, Petty NK, Schembri MA. Chaperone-usher fimbriae of Escherichia coli. PLoS One. 2013;8:e52835. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052835
  67. 67. Chapman MR, Robinson LS, Pinkner JS, Roth R, Heuser J, Hammar M, et al. Role of Escherichia coli curli operons in directing amyloid fiber formation. Science. 2002;295:851-855. DOI: 10.1126/science.1067484
  68. 68. Van Houdt R, Michiels CW. Role of bacterial cell surface structures in Escherichia coli biofilm formation. Research in Microbiology. 2005;156:626-633. DOI: 10.1016/j.resmic.2005.02.005
  69. 69. Barnhart MM, Chapman MR. Curli biogenesis and function. Annual Review of Microbiology. 2006;60:131-147. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.micro.60.080805.142106
  70. 70. Van Loy CP, Sokurenko EV, Moseley SL. The major structural subunits of Dr and F1845 fimbriae are adhesins. Infection and Immunity. 2002;70:1694-1702. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.70.4.1694-1702.2002
  71. 71. Baby S, Karnaker VK, Geetha R. Adhesins of Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC). Int J Med Microbiol Trop Dis. 2016;2:10-18
  72. 72. Stubenrauch C, Belousoff MJ, Hay ID, Shen H-H, Lillington J, Tuck KL, et al. Effective assembly of fimbriae in Escherichia coli depends on the translocation assembly module nanomachine. Natural Microbiology. 2016;1:16064. DOI: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.64
  73. 73. Waksman G, Hultgren SJ. Structural biology of the chaperone–usher pathway of pilus biogenesis. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2009;7:765. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2220
  74. 74. Nuccio S-P, Bäumler AJ. Evolution of the chaperone/usher assembly pathway: Fimbrial classification goes Greek. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2007;71:551-575. DOI: 10.1128/MMBR.00014-07
  75. 75. Busch A, Waksman G. Chaperone–usher pathways: Diversity and pilus assembly mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B. 2012;367:1112-1122. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0206
  76. 76. Matuszewski MA, Tupikowski K, Dołowy Ł, Szymańska B, Dembowski J, Zdrojowy R. Uroplakins and their potential applications in urology. Central European Journal of Urology. 2016;69:252. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2016.638
  77. 77. Bien J, Sokolova O, Bozko P. Role of uropathogenic Escherichia Coli virulence factors in development of urinary tract infection and kidney damage. International Journla of Nephrology. 2012;2012:1-15. DOI: 10.1155/2012/681473
  78. 78. Khan AS, Kniep B, Oelschlaeger TA, Van Die I, Korhonen T, Hacker J. Receptor structure for F1C fimbriae of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Infection and Immunity. 2000;68:3541-3547. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.68.6.3541-3547.2000
  79. 79. Ejrnæs K. Bacterial characteristics of importance for recurrent urinary tract infections caused by Escherichia coli. Dan Med Bull. 2011;58:B4187
  80. 80. Ranjbar R, Bolandian M, Behzadi P. Virulotyping of Shigella spp. isolated from pediatric patients in Tehran, Iran. Acta Microbiologica et Immunologica Hungarica. 2017;64:71-80. DOI: 10.1556/030.64.2017.007
  81. 81. Ranjbar R, Tabatabaee A, Behzadi P, Kheiri R. Enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus polymerase chain reaction (ERIC-PCR) genotyping of Escherichia coli strains isolated from different animal stool specimens. Iranian Journal of Pathology. 2017;12:25-34
  82. 82. Behzadi E, Behzadi P, Sirmatel F. Identification of 30-kDa heat shock protein gene in Trichophyton rubrum. Mycoses. 2009;52:234-238. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.2008.01561.x
  83. 83. Munkhdelger Y, Gunregjav N, Dorjpurev A, Juniichiro N, Sarantuya J. Detection of virulence genes, phylogenetic group and antibiotic resistance of uropathogenic Escherichia coli in Mongolia. Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2017;11:51-57. DOI: 10.3855/jidc.7903
  84. 84. Ebadi M, Askari N, Jajarmi M, Ghanbarpour R. Detection of fimbrial genes, antibiotic resistance profile and phylogenetic background of uropathogenic E. coli isolated from clinical samples in Karaj City, Iranian Journal of Medical Bacteriology. 2017;6:15-20
  85. 85. Paniagua-Contreras GL, Hernández-Jaimes T, Monroy-Pérez E, Vaca-Paniagua F, Díaz-Velásquez C, Uribe-García A, et al. Comprehensive expression analysis of pathogenicity genes in uropathogenic Escherichia coli strains. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2017;103:1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2016.12.008
  86. 86. Yun KW, Kim HY, Park HK, Kim W, Lim IS. Virulence factors of uropathogenic Escherichia coli of urinary tract infections and asymptomatic bacteriuria in children. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infection. 2014;47:455-461. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmii.2013.07.010
  87. 87. Behzadi P, Behzadi E, Ranjbar R. IL-12 family cytokines: General characteristics, pathogenic microorganisms, receptors, and signalling pathways. Acta Microbiologica et Immunologica Hungarica. 2016;63:1-25. DOI: 10.1556/030.63.2016.1.1
  88. 88. Behzadi P, Behzadi E, Ranjbar R. Microarray probe set: Biology, bioinformatics and biophysics. Albanian Medical Journal. 2015;2:78-83
  89. 89. Behzadi P, Ranjbar R. Microarray long oligo probe designing for Bacteria: An in silico pan-genomic research. Albanian Medical Journal. 2016;2:5-11
  90. 90. Ranjbar R, Behzadi P, Mammina C. Respiratory tularemia: Francisella tularensis and microarray probe designing. The Open Microbiology Journal. 2016;10:176-182. DOI: 10.2174/1874285801610010176
  91. 91. Behzadi P, Ranjbar R, Alavian SM. Nucleic acid-based approaches for detection of viral hepatitis. Jundishapur Journal of Microbiol. 2015;8:e17449. DOI: 10.5812/jjm.17449
  92. 92. Behzadi P, Behzadi E, Alavian SM. DNA microarray technology in HBV genotyping. Minerva Medica. 2017;108:473-476. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4806.17.05059-5
  93. 93. Ranjbar R, Behzadi P, Farshad S. Advances in diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Acta Microbiologica et Immunologica Hungarica. 2017;64:273-292. DOI: 10.1556/030.64.2017.008

Written By

Payam Behzadi

Submitted: 10 May 2017 Reviewed: 29 September 2017 Published: 20 December 2017