4.4 Article

Membrane vesicles shed by Legionella pneumophila inhibit fusion of phagosomes with lysosomes

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 3285-3295

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.01382-05

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI040694, 2 R01 AI040694] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When cultured in broth to the transmissive phase, Legionella pneumophila infects macrophages by inhibiting phagosome maturation, whereas replicative-phase cells are transported to the lysosomes. Here we report that the ability of L. pneumophila to inhibit phagosome-lysosome fusion correlated with developmentally regulated modifications of the pathogen's surface, as judged by its lipopolysaccharide profile and by its binding to a sialic acid-specific lectin and to the hydrocarbon hexadecane. Likewise, the composition of membrane vesicles shed by L. pneumophila was developmentally regulated, based on binding to the lectin and to the lipopolysaccharide-specific monoclonal antibody 3/1. Membrane vesicles were sufficient to inhibit phagosome-lysosome fusion by a mechanism independent of type IV secretion, since only similar to 25% of beads suspended with or coated by vesicles from transmissive phase wild type or dotA secretion mutants colocalized with lysosomal probes, whereas similar to 75% of beads were lysosomal when untreated or presented with vesicles from the L. pneumophila letA regulatory mutant or E. coli. As observed previously for L. pneumophila infection of mouse macrophages, vesicles inhibited phagosome-lysosome fusion only temporarily; by 10 h after treatment with vesicles, macrophages delivered similar to 72% of ingested beads to lysosomes. Accordingly, in the context of the epidemiology of the pneumonia Legionnaires' disease and virulence mechanisms of Leishmania and Mycobacteria, we discuss a model here in which L. pneumophila developmentally regulates its surface composition and releases vesicles into phagosomes that inhibit their fusion with lysosomes.

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

4.4
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