4.8 Article

Flexible Usage and Interconnectivity of Diverse Cell Death Pathways Protect against Intracellular Infection

期刊

IMMUNITY
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 533-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.07.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [1186575, 1145728, 1143105, 1159658, 1016701, 1020363, 1156095]
  2. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of America [LLS SCOR 700113]
  3. Cancer Council of Victoria [1147328, 1052309]
  4. Australian Phenomics Network
  5. Cass Foundation
  6. Wellcome Trust [108045/Z/15/Z]
  7. German Research Council [GRK2168]
  8. Victorian State Government Operational Infrastructure Support Program
  9. Australian Government Independent Research Institute Infrastructure Support Scheme [361646, 9000220]
  10. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1186575, 1159658] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Programmed cell death contributes to host defense against pathogens. To investigate the relative importance of pyroptosis, necroptosis, and apoptosis during Salmonella infection, we infected mice and macrophages deficient for diverse combinations of caspases-1, -11, -12, and -8 and receptor interacting serine/threonine kinase 3 (RIPK3). Loss of pyroptosis, caspase-8-driven apoptosis, or necroptosis had minor impact on Salmonella control. However, combined deficiency of these cell death pathways caused loss of bacterial control in mice and their macrophages, demonstrating that host defense can employ varying components of several cell death pathways to limit intracellular infections. This flexible use of distinct cell death pathways involved extensive cross-talk between initiators and effectors of pyroptosis and apoptosis, where initiator caspases-1 and -8 also functioned as executioners when all known effectors of cell death were absent. These findings uncover a highly coordinated and flexible cell death system with in-built fail-safe processes that protect the host from intracellular 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

4.8
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