4.8 Article

Salmonella typhimurium lacking ribose chemoreceptors localize in tumor quiescence and induce apoptosis

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 67, 期 7, 页码 3201-3209

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2618

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effectiveness of most chemotherapeutics is limited by their inability to penetrate deep into tumor tissue and their ineffectiveness against quiescent cells. Motile Salmonella typhimurium, which are specifically attracted to compounds produced by quiescent cancer cells, could overcome this therapeutic barrier. We hypothesized that individual chemoreceptors target S. typhimurium to specific tumor microenvironments. To test this hypothesis, we used time-lapse fluorescent microscopy and tumor cylindroids to quantify the accumulation of chemotaxis machinery knockouts, including strains lacking individual cell surface chemoreceptors, chemotaxis signal transduction pathway enzymes, and the flagella and motor assemblies. To measure the extent of apoptosis induced by individual bacteria] strains, caspase-3 activity was measured as a function of time. Our results showed how chemoreceptors directed bacterial chemotaxis within cylindroids: the aspartate receptor initiated chemotaxis toward cylindroids, the serine receptor initiated penetration, and the ribose/galactose receptor directed S. typhimurium toward necrosis. In addition, strains lacking proper flagella constructs, signal transduction proteins, or active motor function did not chemotax toward tumor cylindroids, indicating that directed chemotaxis is necessary to promote accumulation in tumors. By deleting the ribose/galactose receptor, bacterial accumulation localized to tumor quiescence and had a greater individual effect on inducing apoptosis than wild-type S. typhimurium. This new understanding of the mechanisms of Salmonella migration in tumors will allow for the development of bacterial therapies with improved targeting to therapeutically inaccessible regions of tumors.

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

4.8
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