4.8 Article

Increased pathogenicity of pneumococcal serotype 1 is driven by rapid autolysis and release of pneumolysin

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-15751-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council [MR/P011284/1]
  2. University of Liverpool, Institute of Infection and Global Health
  3. Sir Henry Dale Fellowship - Wellcome Trust [204457/Z/16/Z]
  4. Sir Henry Dale Fellowship - Royal Society [204457/Z/16/Z]
  5. University of Warwick, WCPRS programme
  6. Wellcome Trust [204457/Z/16/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  7. MRC [MR/N002679/1, MR/P011284/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 1 is the predominant cause of invasive pneumococcal disease in sub-Saharan Africa, but the mechanism behind its increased invasiveness is not well understood. Here, we use mouse models of lung infection to identify virulence factors associated with severe bacteraemic pneumonia during serotype-1 (ST217) infection. We use BALB/c mice, which are highly resistant to pneumococcal pneumonia when infected with other serotypes. However, we observe 100% mortality and high levels of bacteraemia within 24hours when BALB/c mice are intranasally infected with ST217. Serotype 1 produces large quantities of pneumolysin, which is rapidly released due to high levels of bacterial autolysis. This leads to substantial levels of cellular cytotoxicity and breakdown of tight junctions between cells, allowing a route for rapid bacterial dissemination from the respiratory tract into the blood. Thus, our results offer an explanation for the increased invasiveness of serotype 1. The mechanisms behind the high invasiveness of Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 1 are unclear. Here, Jacques et al. show that this feature is due to overproduction and rapid release of pneumolysin, which induces cytotoxicity and breakdown of tight junctions, allowing rapid bacterial dissemination from the respiratory tract into the blood.

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

4.8
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