4.7 Article

Oxidative burst in hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) haemocytes

期刊

FISH & SHELLFISH IMMUNOLOGY
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 188-196

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2006.10.006

关键词

quahog; flow cytometry; haemocyte; reactive oxygen species; ROS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Haemocytes of bivalve molluscs are known to be responsible for many immunological functions, including recognition, phagocytosis, and killing or elimination of invading microorgansisms, such as potentially infective bacteria and parasites. In many bivalves, killing of microorganisms engulfed by haemocytes is accomplished by a sudden release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) within the haemocytes; this response is referred to as an oxidative burst. Previous studies have failed to detect oxidative burst in haemocytes of the hard clam (northern quahog), Mercenaria mercenaria. In the present study, we applied a widely used chemical probe for ROS detection in haemocytes, dichlorofluorescin-diacetate (DCFH-DA), to haemocytes from this clam species and used flow cytometry to quantify fluorescence in individual haemocytes. Oxidation of DCFH-DA to the fluorescent product, DCF, within unstimulated haemocytes indicated that ROS were clearly produced in these cells. Two activators of oxidative burst, zymosan and bacterial extracellular products, which have been applied successfully to haemocytes in other species, stimulated large increases in ROS production in hard clam haemocytes. Furthermore, two inhibitors of ROS production, W-13 and diphenylene iodinium (DPI), significantly suppressed ROS production by haemocytes. Nitric oxide synthase inhibitors, NMMA and L-NIO, did not suppress ROS production, indicating that the observed oxidation of DCFH-DA is not mediated by nitric oxide. These results show unequivocally that haemocyte oxidative burst is active in M. mercenaria and, therefore, is a likely mechanism in host response to pathogens and parasites. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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