4.5 Article

The survival of epidemic and sporadic MRSA on human skin mimics is determined by both host and bacterial factors

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268822001765

关键词

Bacterial infection; epidermal model; innate immunity; keratinocytes; MRSA; virulence factors

资金

  1. JPIAMR 3rd call, AMR Transmission dynamics and Dutch ZonMw [547001006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial survival and interactions with human skin contribute to the success of MRSA strains. Different MRSA strains have varying survival rates and expression of immune factors on different cell models. Epidemic MRSA strains express certain virulence factors.
Bacterial survival on, and interactions with, human skin may explain the epidemiological success of MRSA strains. We evaluated the bacterial counts for 27 epidemic and 31 sporadic MRSA strains on 3D epidermal models based on N/TERT cells (NEMs) after 1, 2 and 8 days. In addition, the expression of antimicrobial peptides (hBD-2, RNase 7), inflammatory cytokines (IL-1 beta, IL-6) and chemokine IL-8 by NEMs was assessed using immunoassays and the expression of 43 S. aureus virulence factors was determined by a multiplex competitive Luminex assay. To explore donor variation, bacterial counts for five epidemic and seven sporadic MRSA strains were determined on 3D primary keratinocyte models (LEMs) from three human donors. Bacterial survival was comparable on NEMs between the two groups, but on LEMs, sporadic strains showed significantly lower survival numbers compared to epidemic strains. Both groups triggered the expression of immune factors. Upon interaction with NEMs, only the epidemic MRSA strains expressed pore-forming toxins, including alpha-hemolysin (Hla), gamma-hemolysin (HlgB), Panton-Valentine leucocidin (LukS) and LukED. Together, these data indicate that the outcome of the interaction between MRSA and human skin mimics, depends on the unique combination of bacterial strain and host factors.

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

4.5
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