4.6 Article

ADS024, a Bacillus velezensis strain, protects human colonic epithelial cells against C. difficile toxin-mediated apoptosis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1072534

关键词

infection; biologic; therapy; single-strain live biotherapeutic product; apoptosis; C; difficile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ADS024, a Bacillus velezensis strain, can prevent intestinal injury and toxin-induced apoptosis. The sterile filtrate and ethyl acetate extract of ADS024 can protect against toxin-mediated mucosal epithelial injury and apoptosis by inhibiting caspase 3 cleavage.
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) causes intestinal injury. Toxin A and toxin B cause intestinal injury by inducing colonic epithelial cell apoptosis. ADS024 is a Bacillus velezensis strain in development as a single-strain live biotherapeutic product (SS-LBP) to prevent the recurrence of CDI following the completion of standard antibiotic treatment. We evaluated the protective effects of the sterile filtrate and ethyl acetate extract of conditioned media from ADS024 and DSM7 (control strain) against mucosal epithelial injury in toxin-treated human colonic tissues and apoptosis in toxin-treated human colonic epithelial cells. Ethyl acetate extracts were generated from conditioned culture media from DSM7 and ADS024. Toxin A and toxin B exposure caused epithelial injury in fresh human colonic explants. The sterile filtrate of ADS024, but not DSM7, prevented toxin B-mediated epithelial injury in fresh human colonic explants. Both sterile filtrate and ethyl acetate extract of ADS024 prevented toxin-mediated apoptosis in human colonic epithelial cells. The anti-apoptotic effects of ADS024 filtrate and ethyl acetate extract were dependent on the inhibition of caspase 3 cleavage. The sterile filtrate, but not ethyl acetate extract, of ADS024 partially degraded toxin B. ADS024 inhibits toxin B-mediated apoptosis in human colonic epithelial cells and colonic explants.

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