4.7 Review

The glyoxylate cycle and alternative carbon metabolism as metabolic adaptation strategies of Candida glabrata: perspectives from Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12929-019-0546-5

关键词

Candida; Candida glabrata; Carbon metabolism; Glyoxylate cycle; Metabolic adaptation; Pathogenesis; virulence; yeast

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) from Ministry of Education (MOE), Malaysia [01-01-14-1456FR]
  2. MyBrain15 Scholarship from MOE, Malaysia
  3. Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) from Universiti Putra Malaysia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundCarbon utilization and metabolism are fundamental to every living organism for cellular growth. For intracellular human fungal pathogens such as Candida glabrata, an effective metabolic adaptation strategy is often required for survival and pathogenesis. As one of the host defence strategies to combat invading pathogens, phagocytes such as macrophages constantly impose restrictions on pathogens' access to their preferred carbon source, glucose. Surprisingly, it has been reported that engulfed C. glabrata are able to survive in this harsh microenvironment, further suggesting alternative carbon metabolism as a potential strategy for this opportunistic fungal pathogen to persist in the host.Main textIn this review, we discuss alternative carbon metabolism as a metabolic adaptation strategy for the pathogenesis of C. glabrata. As the glyoxylate cycle is an important pathway in the utilization of alternative carbon sources, we also highlight the key metabolic enzymes in the glyoxylate cycle and its necessity for the pathogenesis of C. glabrata. Finally, we explore the transcriptional regulatory network of the glyoxylate cycle.ConclusionConsidering evidence from Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, this review summarizes the current knowledge of the glyoxylate cycle as an alternative carbon metabolic pathway of C. glabrata.

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

4.7
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