4.6 Article

In Vitro Reduction of Interleukin-8 Response to Enterococcus faecalis by Escherichia coli Strains Isolated from the Same Polymicrobial Urines

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9071501

关键词

UTI; urinary tract infection; mixed infection; synergy; CXCL8; interleukin-8; Escherichia coli; Enterococcus faecalis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study found that uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) showed weaker CXCL8 induction response to pathogenic Enterococcus faecalis, while mutant UPEC with abnormal fluoroquinolone resistant gene showed reduced immune modulation activity towards CXCL8.
Urinary tract infections are often polymicrobial and are mainly due to uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC). We previously demonstrated a link among clinical fluoroquinolone susceptible E. coli reducing in vitro urothelial interleukin-8 (CXCL8) induced by E. coli K-12, polymicrobial cystitis, and pyuria absence. Here, we evaluated whether fifteen clinical fluoroquinolone susceptible UPEC were able to reduce CXCL8 induced by Enterococcus faecalis that had been isolated from the same mixed urines, other than CXCL8 induced by E. coli K-12. We also evaluated the connection between fluoroquinolone susceptibility and pathogenicity by evaluating the immune modulation of isogenic gyrA, a mutant UPEC resistant to ciprofloxacin. Using the 5637 bladder epithelial cell line, we observed that lower CXCL8 induced the most UPEC isolates than K-12 and the corresponding E. faecalis. During coinfections of UPEC/K-12 and UPEC/E. faecalis, we observed lower CXCL8 than during infections caused by K-12 and E. faecalis alone. UPEC strains showed host-pathogen and pathogen-pathogen interaction, which in part explained their persistence in the human urinary tract and coinfections, respectively. Mutant UPEC showed lower modulating activity with respect to the wildtypes, confirming the connection between acquired fluoroquinolone resistance and the decrease of innate microbial properties.

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