4.6 Article

FHA-Mediated Cell-Substrate and Cell-Cell Adhesions Are Critical for Bordetella pertussis Biofilm Formation on Abiotic Surfaces and in the Mouse Nose and the Trachea

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028811

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica [BID 1728/OC-AR-PICT 34836]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1R01AI075081, T32 AI07401]
  3. ASM (American Society for Microbiology)
  4. IUBMB (International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bordetella spp. form biofilms in the mouse nasopharynx, thereby providing a potential mechanism for establishing chronic infections in humans and animals. Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) is a major virulence factor of B. pertussis, the causative agent of the highly transmissible and infectious disease, pertussis. In this study, we dissected the role of FHA in the distinct biofilm developmental stages of B. pertussis on abiotic substrates and in the respiratory tract by employing a murine model of respiratory biofilms. Our results show that the lack of FHA reduced attachment and decreased accumulation of biofilm biomass on artificial surfaces. FHA contributes to biofilm development by promoting the formation of microcolonies. Absence of FHA from B. pertussis or antibody-mediated blockade of surface-associated FHA impaired the attachment of bacteria to the biofilm community. Exogenous addition of FHA resulted in a dose-dependent inhibitory effect on bacterial association with the biofilms. Furthermore, we show that FHA is important for the structural integrity of biofilms formed on the mouse nose and trachea. Together, these results strongly support the hypothesis that FHA promotes the formation and maintenance of biofilms by mediating cell-substrate and inter-bacterial adhesions. These discoveries highlight FHA as a key factor in establishing structured biofilm communities in the respiratory tract.

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