4.6 Article

The human lung mucosa drives differential Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection outcome in the alveolar epithelium

期刊

MUCOSAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 795-804

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41385-019-0156-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/NIAID [AI073856, AI093570, CMIB T32-AI112542]
  2. Ohio State University (OSU) College of Medicine Systems in Integrative Biology Training Program Fellowship - NIH/NIGMS [SIB T32-GM068412]
  3. Forum Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) is deposited into the alveolus where it first encounters the alveolar lining fluid (ALF) prior contacts host cells. We demonstrated that M.tb-exposure to human ALF alters its cell surface, driving better M.tb infection control by professional phagocytes. Contrary to these findings, our results with non-professional phagocytes alveolar epithelial cells (ATs) define two distinct subsets of human ALFs; where M.tb exposure to Low (L)-ALF or High(H)-ALF results in low or high intracellular bacterial growth rates in ATs, respectively. H-ALF exposed-M.tb growth within ATs was independent of M.tb-uptake, M.tb-trafficking, and M.tb-infection induced cytotoxicity; however, it was associated with enhanced bacterial replication within LAMP-1(+)/ABCA1(+) compartments. H-ALF exposed-M.tb infection of ATs decreased AT immune mediator production, decreased AT surface adhesion expression, and downregulated macrophage inflammatory responses. Composition analysis of H-ALF vs. L-ALF showed H-ALF with higher protein tyrosine nitration and less functional ALF-innate proteins important in M.tb pathogenesis. Replenishment of H-ALF with functional ALF-innate proteins reversed the H-ALF-M.tb growth rate to the levels observed for L-ALF-M.tb. These results indicate that dysfunctionality of innate proteins in the H-ALF phenotype promotes M.tb replication within ATs, while limiting inflammation and phagocyte activation, thus potentiating ATs as a reservoir for M.tb replication and survival.

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