4.4 Article

Patterns of epithelial cell invasion by different species of the Burkholderia cepacia complex in well-differentiated human airway epithelia

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 70, 期 8, 页码 4547-4555

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.70.8.4547-4555.2002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Burkholderia cepacia has emerged as a serious respiratory pathogen in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. The clinical course of B. cepacia infections is variable, but similar to20% of patients eventually succumb to the cepacia syndrome, which is characterized as a fatal necrotizing pneumonia with bacteremia. The mechanisms that permit B. cepacia to cause bacteremia are not yet known but probably involve sequential penetration of airway barriers. This study evaluated the abilities of different species of the B. cepacia complex, including a strain from the ET12 lineage (BC-7, genomovar III, cblA(+)), which is associated with most cepacia syndrome fatalities among CF populations, a genomovar IV strain (1112258), and a genomovar 11 strain (J-1) to penetrate polarized, well-differentiated human airway epithelial cell cultures. As revealed by light and electron microscopy, all three B. cepacia strains tested circumvented the mechanical barriers of mucus and ciliary transport to penetrate the airway epithelium but they used different routes. The BC-7 strain (genomovar III) formed biofilms in close proximity to the apical cell surface, followed by invasion and destruction of epithelial cells. This process involved disruption of the glycocalyx and rearrangements of the actin cytoskeleton. The HI2258 strain (genomovar IV) did not form biofilms, and the majority of bacteria that penetrated the epithelium were located between epithelial cells, suggesting paracytosis. Strain J-1 penetrated the epithelium both by cell destruction and paracytosis. These studies suggest that the distinct invasion pathways employed by B. cepacia may account for differences in virulence between B. cepacia genomovars.

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