4.5 Article

Metabonomic Investigation of Single and Multiple Strain Trypanosoma brucei brucei Infections

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0402

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PPOOB 102883, PPOOB 119129]
  2. Imperial College London and Technologie Servier
  3. Wellcome Trust/Imperial College [PS1041]
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KJXC2 YW W11]
  5. US National Science Foundation [DEB 0408083]
  6. Yale Institute of Biospheric Studies
  7. Novartis Stiftung fur medizmisch biologische Forschung
  8. University of Basel Fonds zur Forderung des akademischen Nachwuchses
  9. Medical Research Council [G0801056B] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) [U62PS001041] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although co infections are common and can have important epidemiologic and evolutionary consequences, studies exploring biochemical effects of multiple strain infections remain scarce We studied metabolic responses of NMRI mice to Trypanosoma brucei brucei single (STIB777AE-Green1 or STIB246BA-Red1) and co infections using a H-1 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy-based metabolic profiling strategy All T b brucei infections caused an alteration in urinary biochemical composition by day 4 postinfection, characterized by increased concentrations of 2 oxoisocaproate, D 3 hydroxybutyrate, lactate, 4-hydroxyphenylacetate, phenylpyruvate, and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate, and decreased levels of hippurate Although there were no marked differences in metabolic signatures observed in the mouse infected with a single or dual strain of T b brucei, there was a slower metabolic response in mice infected with T b brucei green strain compared with mice infected with either the red strain or both strains concurrently Pyruvate phenylpyruvate and hippurate were correlated with parasitemia which might be useful in monitoring responses to therapeutic interventions

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