4.4 Article

Evidence that Membrane Rafts Are Not Required for the Action of Clostridium perfringens Enterotoxin

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 76, 期 12, 页码 5677-5685

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00854-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [R37-AI019844-24, AI060525]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The action of bacterial pore-forming toxins typically involves membrane rafts for binding, oligomerization, and/or cytotoxicity. Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin (CPE) is a pore-forming toxin with a unique, multistep mechanism of action that involves the formation of complexes containing tight junction proteins that include claudins and, sometimes, occludin. Using sucrose density gradient centrifugation, this study evaluated whether the CPE complexes reside in membrane rafts and what role raft microdomains play in complex formation and CPE-induced cytotoxicity. Western blot analysis revealed that the small CPE complex and the CPE hexamer 1 (CH-1) complex, which is sufficient for CPE-induced cytotoxicity, both localize outside of rafts. The CH-2 complex was also found mainly in nonraft fractions, although a small pool of raft-associated CH-2 complex that was sensitive to cholesterol depletion with methyl-beta-cyclodextrin (M beta CD) was detected. Pretreatment of Caco-2 cells with M beta CD had no appreciable effect on CPE-induced cytotoxicity. Claudin-4 was localized to Triton X-100-soluble gradient fractions of control or CPE-treated Caco-2 cells, indicating a raft-independent association for this CPE receptor. In contrast, occludin was present in raft fractions of control Caco-2 cells. Treatment with either M beta CD or CPE caused most occludin molecules to shift out of lipid rafts, possibly due (at least in part) to the association of occludin with the CH-2 complex. Collectively, these results suggest that CPE is a unique pore-forming toxin for which membrane rafts are not required for binding, oligomerization/pore formation, or cytotoxicity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据