4.6 Article

Implications of Time Bomb model of ookinete invasion of midgut cells

Journal

INSECT BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 1311-1316

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0965-1748(02)00093-0

Keywords

malaria; mosquito; ookinete invasion; NOS; Time Bomb model

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI5573-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this review, we describe the experimental observations that led us to propose the Time Bomb model of ookinete midgut invasion and discuss potential implications of this model when considering malaria transmission-blocking strategies aimed at arresting parasite development within midgut cells. A detailed analysis of the molecular interactions between Anopheles stephensi midgut epithelial cells and Plasmodium berghei parasites, as they migrate through midgut cells, revealed that ookinetes induce nitric oxide synthase (NOS) expression, remodeling of the actin cytoskeleton and characteristic morphological changes in the invaded epithelial cells. Parasites inflict extensive damage that ultimately leads to genome fragmentation and cell death. During their migration through the cytoplasm, ookinetes release a subtilisin-like protease (PbSub2) and the surface protein (Pbs21). The model proposes that ookinetes must escape rapidly from the invaded cells, as the responses mediating cell death could be potentially lethal to the parasites. In other words, the physical and/or chemical damage triggered by the parasite can be thought of as a 'lethal bomb'. Once this cascade of events is initiated, the parasite must leave the cellular compartment within a limited time to escape unharmed from the 'bomb' it has activated. The midgut epithelium has the ability to heal rapidly by 'budding off' the damaged cells to the midgut lumen without losing its integrity. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available