4.4 Article

Staphylococcus aureus strains that express serotype 5 or serotype 8 capsular polysaccharides differ in virulence

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 73, 期 6, 页码 3502-3511

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.73.6.3502-3511.2005

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI029040, R21 AI029040, AI 29040] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most isolates of Staphylococcus aureus produce a serotype 5 (CP5) or 8 (CP8) capsular polysaccharide. To investigate whether CP5 and CP8 differ in their biological properties, we created isogenic mutants of S. aureus Reynolds that expressed CP5, CP8, or no capsule. Biochemical analyses of CP5 and CP8 purified from the isogenic S. aureus strains were consistent with published structures. The degree of 0 acetylation of each polysaccharide was similar, but CP5 showed a greater degree of N acetylation. Mice challenged with the CP5(+) strain showed a significantly higher bacteremia level than mice challenged with the CP8(+) strain. Similarly, the CP5(+) strain survived preferentially in the bloodstream and kidneys of infected mice challenged with a mixed inoculum containing both strains. The enhanced virulence of the CP5(+) strain in vivo correlated with its greater resistance to in vitro killing in whole mouse blood. Likewise, in vitro opsonophagocytic killing assays with human neutrophils and sera revealed greater survival of the Reynolds (CP5) strain, even though the kinetics of opsonization by C3b and iC3b was similar for both the CP5(+) and CP8(+) strains. Electron micrographs demonstrated C3 molecules on the cell wall beneath the capsule layer for both serotype 5 and 8 strains. Purified CP5 and CP8 stimulated a modest oxidative burst in human neutrophils but failed to activate the alternative complement pathway. These results indicate that CP5 and CP8 differ in a number of biological properties, and these differences likely contribute to the relative virulence of serotype 5 and 8 S. aureus in vivo.

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