4.8 Article

Fungal kinases and transcription factors regulating brain infection in Cryptococcus neoformans

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-15329-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) - Korean government (MSIT) [2016R1E1A1A01943365, 2018R1A5A1025077, 2017R1A2B3011098, 2017M3C7A1023471, 2018R1C1B6009031]
  2. Strategic Initiative for Microbiomes in Agriculture and Food - Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs [918012-4]
  3. Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health and Welfare [HI18C1664]
  4. Brain Korea 21 (BK21) PLUS program
  5. AmtixBio, Co., Ltd.
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018R1C1B6009031] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cryptococcus neoformans causes fatal fungal meningoencephalitis. Here, we study the roles played by fungal kinases and transcription factors (TFs) in blood-brain barrier (BBB) crossing and brain infection in mice. We use a brain infectivity assay to screen signature-tagged mutagenesis (STM)-based libraries of mutants defective in kinases and TFs, generated in the C. neoformans H99 strain. We also monitor in vivo transcription profiles of kinases and TFs during host infection using NanoString technology. These analyses identify signalling components involved in BBB adhesion and crossing, or survival in the brain parenchyma. The TFs Pdr802, Hob1, and Sre1 are required for infection under all the conditions tested here. Hob1 controls the expression of several factors involved in brain infection, including inositol transporters, a metalloprotease, PDR802, and SRE1. However, Hob1 is dispensable for most cellular functions in Cryptococcus deuterogattii R265, a strain that does not target the brain during infection. Our results indicate that Hob1 is a master regulator of brain infectivity in C. neoformans.

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