4.7 Article

Plasmodium vivax ligand-receptor interaction: PvAMA-1 domain I contains the minimal regions for specific interaction with CD71+reticulocytes

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-10025-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Colombian Science, Technology and Innovation Department (COLCIENCIAS) [0309-2013]
  2. COLCIENCIAS [0289-2014]
  3. Sistema General de Regalias (SGR)-BPIN [2013000100103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The malarial parasite's invasion is complex, active and coordinated, involving many low and high affinity interactions with receptors on target cell membrane. Proteomics analysis has described around 40 proteins in P. vivax which could be involved in reticulocyte invasion; few have been studied with the aim of elucidating how many of them establish specific interactions with their respective host cells. Given the importance of knowing which of the parasite's protein regions are functionally important for invasion, minimum regions mediating specific interaction between Plasmodium vivax apical membrane antigen 1 (PvAMA-1) and its host cell were here elucidated. The region covering PvAMA-1 domains I and II (PvAMA-DI-II) specifically bound to the CD71(+) red blood cell subpopulation. A 20 residue-long region ((81)EVENAKYRIPAGRCPVFGKG(100)) located in domain I was capable of inhibiting PvAMA-DI-II recombinant protein binding to young reticulocytes (CD71(+) CD45(-)) and rosette formation. This conserved peptide specifically interacted with high affinity with reticulocytes (CD71(+)) through a neuraminidase-and chymotrypsin-treatment sensitive receptor. Such results showed that, despite AMA-1 having universal functions during late Plasmodium invasion stages, PvAMA-1 had reticulocyte-preferring binding regions, suggesting that P. vivax target cell selection is not just restricted to initial interactions but maintained throughout the erythrocyte invasion cycle, having important implications for designing a specific anti-P. vivax vaccine.

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