4.4 Article

Leishmania amazonensis Amastigotes Trigger Neutrophil Activation but Resist Neutrophil Microbicidal Mechanisms

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 81, 期 11, 页码 3966-3974

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00770-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R56AI043003, T32AI007526, T32AI00753613]
  2. UTMB McLaughlin Endowment Pre-Doctoral Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neutrophils are the first cells to infiltrate to the site of Leishmania promastigote infection, and these cells help to reduce parasite burden shortly after infection is initiated. Several clinical reports indicate that neutrophil recruitment is sustained over the course of leishmaniasis, and amastigote-laden neutrophils have been isolated from chronically infected patients and experimentally infected animals. The goal of this study was to compare how thioglycolate-elicited murine neutrophils respond to L. amazonensis metacyclic promastigotes and amastigotes derived from axenic cultures or from the lesions of infected mice. Neutrophils efficiently internalized both amastigote and promastigote forms of the parasite, and phagocytosis was enhanced in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-activated neutrophils or when parasites were opsonized in serum from infected mice. Parasite uptake resulted in neutrophil activation, oxidative burst, and accelerated neutrophil death. While promastigotes triggered the release of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), uptake of amastigotes preferentially resulted in the secretion of interleukin-10 (IL-10) from neutrophils. Finally, the majority of promastigotes were killed by neutrophils, while axenic culture- and lesion-derived amastigotes were highly resistant to neutrophil microbicidal mechanisms. This study indicates that neutrophils exhibit distinct responses to promastigote and amastigote infection. Our findings have important implications for determining the impact of sustained neutrophil recruitment and amastigote-neutrophil interactions during the late phase of cutaneous leishmaniasis.

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