4.4 Article

Interactions of pulmonary collectins with Bordetella bronchiseptica and Bordetella pertussis lipopolysaccharide elucidate the structural basis of their antimicrobial activities

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 72, 期 12, 页码 7124-7130

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.72.12.7124-7130.2004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 61612] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI045715, R01 AI 45715] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surfactant proteins A (SP-A) and D (SP-D) play an important role in the innate immune defenses of the respiratory tract. SP-A binds to the lipid A region of lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and SP-D binds to the core oligosaccharide region. Both proteins induce aggregation, act as opsonins for neutrophils and macrophages, and have direct antimicrobial activity. Bordetella pertussis LPS has a branched core structure and a nonrepeating terminal trisaccharide. Bordetella bronchiseptica LPS has the same structure, but lipid A is palmitoylated and there is a repeating O-antigen polysaccharide. The ability of SP-A and SP-D to agglutinate and permeabilize wild-type and LPS mutants of B. pertussis and B. bronchiseptica was examined. Previously, wildtype B. pertussis was shown to resist the effects of SP-A; however, LPS mutants lacking the terminal trisaccharide were susceptible to SP-A. In this study, SP-A was found to aggregate and permeabilize a B. bronchiseptica mutant lacking the terminal trisaccharide, while wild-type B. bronchiseptica and mutants lacking only the palmitoyl transferase or O antigen were resistant to SP-A. Wild-type B. pertussis and B. bronchiseptica were both resistant to SP-D; however, LPS mutants of either strain lacking the terminal trisaccharide were aggregated and permeabilized by SP-D. We conclude that the terminal trisaccharide protects Bordetella species from the bactericidal functions of SP-A and SP-D. The O antigen and palmitoylated lipid A of B. bronchiseptica play no role in this resistance.

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