4.8 Article

A peptidoglycan storm caused by β-lactam antibiotic's action on host microbiota drives Candida albicans infection

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-22845-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Medical Research Council [NMRC/OFIRG0025/2016, OFIRG/0072/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Broad-spectrum antibiotics can induce the release of peptidoglycan fragments by commensal bacteria, leading to the invasive growth of C. albicans and systemic dissemination, which is a significant risk factor for infection.
The commensal fungus Candida albicans often causes life-threatening infections in patients who are immunocompromised with high mortality. A prominent but poorly understood risk factor for the C. albicans commensalpathogen transition is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Here, we report that beta -lactam antibiotics cause bacteria to release significant quantities of peptidoglycan fragments that potently induce the invasive hyphal growth of C. albicans. We identify several active peptidoglycan subunits, including tracheal cytotoxin, a molecule produced by many Gram-negative bacteria, and fragments purified from the cell wall of Gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus. Feeding mice with beta -lactam antibiotics causes a peptidoglycan storm that transforms the gut from a niche usually restraining C. albicans in the commensal state to promoting invasive growth, leading to systemic dissemination. Our findings reveal a mechanism underlying a significant risk factor for C. albicans infection, which could inform clinicians regarding future antibiotic selection to minimize this deadly disease incidence. A risk factor for invasive Candida albicans infection is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, but the reasons are poorly understood. Here, the authors show in mice that beta -lactam antibiotics cause commensal bacteria to release peptidoglycan fragments that induce the invasive hyphal growth of C. albicans, leading to systemic dissemination.

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