4.1 Article

Formation of Very Large Conductance Channels by Bacillus cereus Nhe in Vero and GH4 Cells Identifies NheA plus B as the Inherent Pore-Forming Structure

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE BIOLOGY
卷 237, 期 1, 页码 1-11

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00232-010-9298-6

关键词

Bacillus cereus; Pore-forming toxin; Nonhemolytic enterotoxin; Large-conductance channel; Vero cell; GH(4) cell

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nonhemolytic enterotoxin (Nhe) produced by Bacillus cereus is a pore-forming toxin consisting of three components, NheA, -B and -C. We have studied effects of Nhe on primate epithelial cells (Vero) and rodent pituitary cells (GH(4)) by measuring release of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), K+ efflux and the cytosolic Ca2+ concentration ([Ca2+](i)). Plasma membrane channel events were monitored by patch-clamp recordings. Using strains of B. cereus lacking either NheA or -C, we examined the functional role of the various components. In both cell types, NheA + B + C induced release of LDH and K+ as well as Ca2+ influx. A specific monoclonal antibody against NheB abolished LDH release and elevation of [Ca2+](i). Exposure to NheA + B caused a similar K+ efflux and elevation of [Ca2+](i) as NheA + B + C in GH(4) cells, whereas in Vero cells the rate of K+ efflux was reduced by 50% and [Ca2+](i) was unaffected. NheB + C had no effect on either cell type. Exposure to NheA + B + C induced large-conductance steps in both cell types, and similar channel insertions were observed in GH(4) cells exposed to NheA + B. In Vero cells, NheA + B induced channels of much smaller conductance. NheB + C failed to insert membrane channels. The conductance of the large channels in GH(4) cells was about 10 nS. This is the largest channel conductance reported in cell membranes under quasi-physiological conditions. In conclusion, NheA and NheB are necessary and sufficient for formation of large-conductance channels in GH(4) cells, whereas in Vero cells such large-conductance channels are in addition dependent on NheC.

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

4.1
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