4.6 Article

Genetically distinct Group B Streptococcus strains induce varying macrophage cytokine responses

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222910

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI134036, HD090061, HD091429]
  2. Michigan State University
  3. National Institutes of Health NIAID Training Grant [5T32HL007737-20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is an opportunistic pathogen that causes preterm birth and neonatal disease. Although GBS is known to exhibit vast diversity in virulence across strains, the mechanisms of GBS-associated pathogenesis are incompletely understood. We hypothesized that GBS strains of different genotypes would vary in their ability to elicit host inflammatory responses, and that strains associated with neonatal disease would induce different cytokine profiles than those associated with colonization. Using a multi-plexed, antibody-based protein detection array, we found that production of a discrete number of inflammatory mediators by THP-1 macrophage-like cells was universally induced in response to challenge with each of five genetically distinct GBS isolates, while other responses appeared to be strain-specific. Key array responses were validated by ELISA using the initial five strains as well as ten additional strains with distinct genotypic and phenotypic characteristics. Interestingly, IL-6 was significantly elevated following infection with neonatal infection-associated sequence type (ST)-17 strains and among strains possessing capsule (cps) type III. Significant differences in production of IL1-beta, IL-10 and MCP-2 were also identified across STs and cps types. These data support our hypothesis and suggest that unique host innate immune responses reflect strain -specific differences in virulence across GBS isolates. Such data might inform the development of improved diagnostic or prognostic strategies against invasive GBS infections.

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