4.6 Article

Involvement of Ssp-4-related carbohydrate epitopes in mammalian cell invasion by Trypanosoma cruzi amastigotes

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 2120-2129

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2006.03.016

关键词

Trypanosoma cruzi; amastigote; carbohydrate epitopes; polymorphism; cell invasion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined whether the expression of Ssp-4-related carbohydrate epitopes defined by monoclonal antibodies ID9 and 2B7 was related to cell invasion by Trypanosonia cruzi amastigotes from different isolates and whether the highest expression of the epitope defined by MAb ID9 would confer greater infectivity. Confocal microscopy showed that both epitopes localize to the membrane of amastigotes from 569, 588, 573, 587 and SC2005 isolates, similar to the G isolate, whereas the CL isolate showed a punctate and diffuse staining. Flow cytometry revealed inter and intra-isolate variable expression of these epitopes. Apart from the lower expression of MAb 2B7 epitope by intracellular amastigotes of the SC2005 isolate, amastigotes from chagasic patient isolates expressed both epitopes similar to the G isolate, in contrast to CL isolate, that showed lower expression of both epitopes. MAb ID9 did not react with CL isolate on immunoblots and reacted poorly with 588 and 587 parasites. MAb 2B7 preferentially reacted with an epitope on an 84 kDa component in G and 573 isolates. Invasion assays revealed that despite the fact that arnastigotes from chagasic patient isolates displayed high levels of the epitope defined by MAb 1D9, only isolate 588 invaded host cells in levels comparable to that of isolate G. Both MAbs specifically inhibited cell invasion by G and 588, but not CL. These results suggested that the highest expression of MAb 1D9 epitope was not sufficient to confer higher infectivity on the isolate, and besides the two epitopes, other factors may modulate the invasiveness of extracellular amastigotes from the different isolates. (c) 2006 Elsevier SAS. 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

4.6
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