4.8 Article

Helicobacter pylori outer membrane proteins and gastroduodenal disease

期刊

GUT
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 775-781

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gut.2005.083014

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK062813, DK56338, P30 DK056338, R01 DK062813-03, R01 DK62813] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: A number of Helicobacter pylori outer membrane proteins (OMPs) undergo phase variations. This study examined the relation between OMP phase variations and clinical outcome. Methods: Expression of H pylori BabA, BabB, SabA, and OipA proteins was determined by immunoblot. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the relation among OMP expression, clinical outcome, and mucosal histology. Results: H pylori were cultured from 200 patients (80 with gastritis, 80 with duodenal ulcer (DU), and 40 with gastric cancer). The most reliable results were obtained using cultures from single colonies of low passage number. Stability of expression with passage varied with OipA. BabA. BabB. SabA. OipA positive status was significantly associated with the presence of DU and gastric cancer, high H pylori density, and severe neutrophil infiltration. SabA positive status was associated with gastric cancer, intestinal metaplasia, and corpus atrophy, and negatively associated with DU and neutrophil infiltration. The Sydney system underestimated the prevalence of intestinal metaplasia/atrophy compared with systems using proximal and distal corpus biopsies. SabA expression dramatically decreased following exposure of H pylori to pH 5.0 for two hours. Conclusions: SabA expression frequently switched on or off, suggesting that SabA expression can rapidly respond to changing conditions in the stomach or in different regions of the stomach. SabA positive status was inversely related to the ability of the stomach to secrete acid, suggesting that its expression may be regulated by changes in acid secretion and/or in antigens expressed by the atrophic mucosa.

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