4.6 Article

mgrA regulates staphylococcal virulence important for induction and progression of septic arthritis and sepsis

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 10, 期 12-13, 页码 1229-1235

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2008.07.026

关键词

Staphylococcus aureus; Arthritis; Sepsis; Virulence factor; mgrA

资金

  1. King Gustav V 80 Years Foundation
  2. Goteborg Rheumatism Association
  3. Rune and Ulla Amlovs Foundation
  4. families Tholens and Kristlers Foundation
  5. Swedish Medical Association
  6. Swedish Association Against Rheumatism
  7. Foundation of Sigurd and Elsa Goljes Memory
  8. Gotebork University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Septic arthritis and sepsis are common and feared complications of staphylococcal infections, and the increasing antibiotic resistance among staphylococci urge the extended research for virulence factors involved in these diseases. Staphylcoccus aureus produces a number of virulence factors controlled by several global regulatory genes including agr and sarA. MgrA is a recently identified global regulator, belonging to the SarA subfamily, which upregulates expression of several virulence factors including capsule and sortase. In addition, MgrA has been shown to regulate antibiotic resistance and decrease bacterial autolysis. In this study we have assessed the role of mgrA gene expression on induction and progression of septic arthritis and sepsis. Mice inoculated with the mgrA mutant displayed significantly less severe arthritis and showed a significantly better weight development, than wild-type inoculated mice. Importantly, all 10 mice inoculated with the mgrA mutant survived as compared to 70% mortality in the wild-type inoculated mice (p = 0.003). In addition, the mgrA mutant showed significantly less bacterial persistence in kidneys as compared to the wild-type strain. We conclude that mgrA regulates virulence factors important for establishment and progression of septic arthritis and sepsis. (C) 2008 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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