4.6 Article

High virulence sub-populations in Pseudomonas aeruginosa long-term cystic fibrosis airway infections

期刊

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-017-0941-6

关键词

Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Liverpool epidemic strain; Public goods secretions; Virulence; Cystic fibrosis; Pyoverdine; Pyocyanin; LasA protease

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust through the Centre for Chronic Diseases and Disorders (C2D2) at the University of York [105624]
  2. Philip Leverhulme Prize from Leverhulme Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pseudomonas aeruginosa typically displays loss of virulence-associated secretions over the course of chronic cystic fibrosis infections. This has led to the suggestion that virulence is a costly attribute in chronic infections. However, previous reports suggest that overproducing (OP) virulent pathotypes can coexist with non-producing mutants in the CF lung for many years. The consequences of such within-patient phenotypic diversity for the success of this pathogen are not fully understood. Here, we provide in-depth quantification of within-host variation in the production of three virulence associated secretions in the Liverpool cystic fibrosis epidemic strain of P. aeruginosa, and investgate the effect of this phenotypic variation on virulence in acute infections of an insect host model. Results: Within-patient variation was present for all three secretions (pyoverdine, pyocyanin and LasA protease). In two out of three patients sampled, OP isolates coexisted with under-producing mutants. In the third patient, all 39 isolates were under-producers of all three secretions relative to the transmissible ancestor LESB58. Finally, this phenotypic variation translated into variation in virulence in an insect host model. Conclusions: Within population variation in the production of P. aeruginosa virulence-associated secretions can lead to high virulence sub-populations persisting in patients with chronic CF infections.

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