4.0 Article

Mechanism underlying renal failure caused by pathogenic Candida albicans infection

期刊

BIOMEDICAL REPORTS
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 179-182

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/br.2014.393

关键词

Candida albicans; B311; SC5314; tumor necrosis factor-alpha; interleukin-1 beta

资金

  1. Next-Generation BioGreen 21 Program [PJ00811604]
  2. Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Candida albicans (C. albicans) is an opportunistic fungal pathogen that commonly causes nosocomial infections. Systemic candidiasis is encountered with increasing frequency in immunocompromised hosts, leading to renal failure that results in severe morbidity and mortality. The present study investigated the mechanisms underlying kidney susceptibility following infection with several C. albicans strains, such as B311 and SC5314. Fungal growth of the highly virulent SC5314 strain was 10(3)-fold higher compared to the nonpathogenic B311 strain in the kidneys. An intravenous challenge of SC5314 in mice, elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatine levels, which resulted in mortality at 8 or 35 days after infection in a dose- and time-dependent manner, whereas all the B311-infected mice had BUN and creatinine levels in the normal range and survived. Whether virulent C. albicans may escape clearance by activating signaling pathways that lead to the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha and interleukin (IL)-1 beta, was investigated. B311 infections significantly elevated TNF-alpha and IL-1 beta mRNA expression in the kidneys, whereas the expression in SC5314-infected mice remained unchanged. Furthermore, B311 infection significantly elevated the plasma levels of TNF-alpha and IL-1 beta. These results indicated that the less virulent strains of C. albicans induced pro-inflammatory cytokines in mice. These results determined that an impairment of the protective mechanisms occurred in the kidneys with virulent C. albicans infection.

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

4.0
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