4.4 Article

Erythrocyte invasion phenotypes of Plasmodium falciparum in the Gambia

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 71, 期 4, 页码 1856-1863

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.4.1856-1863.2003

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vitro experimentation with Plasmodium falciparum has determined that a number of different receptor-ligand interactions are involved in the invasion of erythrocytes. Most culture-adapted parasite isolates use a mechanism of invasion that depends primarily on the erythrocyte sialoglycoprotein glycophorin A (GYPA) and erythrocyte-binding antigen 175 (EBA-175) of the parasite blood-stage merozoite. However, a minority of culture-adapted parasites and a majority of Indian field isolates can apparently invade by other means. Here, erythrocyte invasion phenotypes of P. falciparum field isolates in Africa were studied. For 38 Gambian isolates, invasion of neuraminidase-treated and trypsin-treated erythrocytes was inhibited, on average, by more than 60 and 85%, respectively, indicating a high level of dependence on sialic acid and trypsin-sensitive proteins on the erythrocyte surface. These results support the hypothesis that African P. falciparum parasites use GYPA as a primary receptor for invasion. However, the considerable variation among isolates confirms the idea that alternative receptors are also used by many parasites. Three amino acid polymorphisms in the GYPA-binding region of EBA-175 (region II) were not significantly associated with invasion phenotype. There was variation among isolates in the selectivity index (i.e., a statistical tendency toward aggregation or multiple invasions of host erythrocytes), but this variation did not correlate with enzyme-determined invasion phenotype or with eba-175 alleles. Overall, these invasion phenotypes in Africa support a vaccine strategy of inhibiting EBA-175 binding to GYPA but suggest that parasites with alternative phenotypes would be selected for if this strategy were used alone.

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