4.8 Article

Synergistic proinflammatory responses induced by polymicrobial colonization of epithelial surfaces

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0500599102

关键词

Haemophilus influenzae; inflammation; nasopharyngeal colonization; Streptococcus pneumoniae

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R21 AI054647, AI054647] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The epithelial surfaces of the upper respiratory tract are continuously exposed to a wide variety of commensal microorganisms. In addition to acting as a physical barrier, epithelial cells respond to specific microbial-products with the generation of signals, such as cytokines, that trigger, inflammation. Because they are common components of the nasopharyngeal flora that share the potential to cause disease, we investigated the effects of Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus. pneumoniae, alone and in combination, on human respiratory epithelial cells in culture and in a murine model of nasopharyngeal colonization. Exposure of A549 or Detroit 562 epithelial cells to both S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae led to a synergistic increase in production of IL-8, the major neutrophil chemokine in the airway, through an NF-kappaB-dependent mechanism. Likewise, nasal cocolonization of mice caused a synergistic rise in local-production of macrophage inflammatory protein 2 in nasal lavage fluid and subsequent recruitment of neutrophils. This synergistic effect depended on production of the pore-forming cytolytic toxin, pneumolysin, by S. pneumoniae and activation of host p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase. Although both H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae have ligands for Toll-like receptors (TLRs) TLR2 and TLR4, synergistic activation was TLR2- and TLR4-independent. Thus, epithelial surfaces are capable of amplifying proinflammatory responses during concurrent stimulation by multiple microbial species. These synergistic responses, demonstrated both in vitro and in vivo, may contribute to inflammation of heavily colonized mucosal barriers.

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