4.7 Article

Chlamydia trachomatis Strains and Virulence: Rethinking Links to Infection Prevalence and Disease Severity

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 201, 期 -, 页码 S126-S133

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/652398

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Health Service [AI 19782]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An unanswered question concerning prevalence and disease severity of Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection is whether more prevalent strains or strains more likely to cause serious disease complications are causally associated with specific virulence attributes. The major method for distinguishing chlamydial strains is based on differences in the major outer membrane protein (MOMP). A subset of MOMP serovars (D and E serovars) are easily the most prevalent strains identified worldwide, but MOMP serovar and genovar analyses have not yielded consistent strain-dependent virulence distinctions. Expansion of the definitions of chlamydial strains beyond the MOMP paradigm are needed to better understand virulence properties for this pathogen and how these properties reflect disease severity. Substantive genetic and phenotypic differences have emerged for the 2 major C. trachomatis pathobiotypes associated with either trachoma or sexually transmitted diseases, but differences within the sexually transmitted disease group have not yielded reliable disease severity attributes. A number of candidate virulence factors have been identified, including the polymorphic outer membrane autotransporter family of proteins, the putative large cytotoxin, type III secretion effectors, stress response proteins, and proteins or other regulatory factors produced by the cryptic plasmid. Continued work on development of a chlamydial gene transfer system and application of genomic approaches to large collections of clinical isolates will be required to associate key chlamydial virulence factors with prevalence and disease severity in a definitive way.

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

4.7
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