4.7 Article

Evidence for Complex Formation of the Bacillus cereus Haemolysin BL Components in Solution

期刊

TOXINS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/toxins9090288

关键词

Bacillus cereus; complex formation; enterotoxins; haemolysin BL; monoclonal antibodies

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) of Germany [13N12611]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Haemolysin BL is an important virulence factor regarding the diarrheal type of food poisoning caused by Bacillus cereus. However, the pathogenic importance of this three-component enterotoxin is difficult to access, as nearly all natural B. cereus culture supernatants additionally contain the highly cytotoxic Nhe, the second three-component toxin involved in the aetiology of B. cereus-induced food-borne diseases. To better address the toxic properties of the Hbl complex, a system for overexpression and purification of functional, cytotoxic, recombinant (r)Hbl components L-2, L-1 and B from E. coli was established and an nheABC deletion mutant was constructed from B. cereus reference strain F837/76. Furthermore, 35 hybridoma cell lines producing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Hbl L-2, L-1 and B were generated. While mAbs 1H9 and 1D8 neutralized Hbl toxicity and thus, represent important tools for future investigations of the mode-of-action of Hbl on the target cell surface, mAb 1D7, in contrast, even enhanced Hbl toxicity by supporting the binding of Hbl B to the cell surface. By using the specific mAbs in Dot blots, indirect and hybrid sandwich enzyme immuno assays (EIAs), complex formation between Hbl L-1 and B, as well as L-1 and L-2 in solution could be shown for the first time. Surface plasmon resonance experiments with the rHbl components confirmed these results with K-D values of 4.7 x 10(-7) M and 1.5 x 10(-7) M, respectively. These findings together with the newly created tools lay the foundation for the detailed elucidation of the molecular mode-of-action of the highly complex three-component Hbl toxin.

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