4.4 Article

Anti-LcrV antibody inhibits delivery of Yops by Yersinia pestis KIM5 by directly promoting phagocytosis

Journal

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
Volume 73, Issue 9, Pages 6127-6137

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.73.9.6127-6137.2005

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R37 AI021017, AI21017] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

LcrV of Yersinia pestis is a major protective antigen proposed for inclusion in subunit plague vaccines. One way that anti-LcrV antibody is thought to protect is by inhibiting the delivery of toxins called Yops to host cells. The present study characterizes the relation between this inhibition and the phagocytosis of the bacteria. J774A.1 cells were infected with Y. pestis KIM5 in the presence of a protective polyclonal anti-LcrV antibody or a nonprotective pollyclonal anti-YopM antibody, and delivery of YopH and YopE into the cytoplasm was assayed by immunoblotting. The ability to inhibit the delivery of these Yops depended upon having antibody bound to the cell surface; blocking conditions that prevented the binding of antibody to Fc receptors prevented the inhibition of Yop delivery. Anti-LcrV antibody also promoted phagocytosis of the yersiniae, whereas F(ab')(2) fragments did not. Further, anti-LcrV antibody could not inhibit the delivery of Yops into cells that were unable to phagocytose due to the presence of cytochalasin D. However, Yops were produced only by extracellular yersiniae. We hypothesize that anti-LcrV antibody does not directly inhibit Yop delivery but instead causes phagocytosis, with consequent inhibition of Yop protein production in the intracellular yersiniae. The prophagocytic effect of anti-LcrV antibody extended to mouse polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs) in vitro, and PMNs were shown to be critical for protection: when PMNs in mice were ablated, the mice lost all ability to be protected by anti-LcrV antibody.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available