4.6 Article

Immune Evasion of Enterococcus faecalis by an Extracellular Gelatinase That Cleaves C3 and iC3b

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 181, 期 9, 页码 6328-6336

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.9.6328

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Research Foundation (KRF) [2005-015-C00447]
  2. Hoseo University
  3. BK21 Program
  4. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, Korea
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2005-015-C00447] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enterococcus faecalis (Ef) accounts for most cases of enterococcal bacteremia, which is one of the principal causes of nosocomial bloodstream infections (BSI). Among several virulence factors associated with the pathogenesis of Ef, an extracellular gelatinase (GelE) has been known to be the most common factor, although its virulence mechanisms, especially in association with human BSI, have yet to be demonstrated. In this study, we describe the complement resistance mechanism of Ef mediated by GelE. Using purified GelE, we determined that it cleaved the C3 occurring in human serum into a C3b-like molecule, which was inactivated rapidly via reaction with water. This C3 convertase-like activity of GelE was shown to result in a consumption of C3 and thus inhibited the activation of the complement system. Also, GelE was confirmed to degrade an iC3b that was deposited on the Ag surfaces without affecting the bound C3b. This proteolytic effect of GelE against the major complement opsonin resulted in a substantial reduction in Ef phagocytosis by human polymorphonuclear leukocytes. In addition, we verified that the action of GelE against C3, which is a central component of the complement cascade, was human specific. Taken together, it was suggested that GelE may represent a promising molecule for targeting human BSI associated with Ef. The Journal of Immunology, 2008, 181: 6328-6336.

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

4.6
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