4.1 Article

Leishmania chagasi:: lipophosphoglycan characterization and binding to the midgut of the sand fly vector Lutzomyia longipalpis

期刊

MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY
卷 121, 期 2, 页码 213-224

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-6851(02)00033-6

关键词

Leishmania chagasi; lipophosphoglycan; Lutzomyia longipalpis; sand fly; peanut agglutinin

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI20941] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During metacyclogenesis of Leishmania in its sand fly vector, the parasite differentiates from a noninfective, procyclic form to an infective, metacyclic form, a process characterized by morphological changes of the parasite and also biochemical transformations in its major surface lipophosphoglycan (LPG). This glycoconjugate is polymorphic among species with variations in sugars that branch off the conserved Gal(beta1,4)Man(alpha1)-PO4 backbone of repeat units and the oligosaccharide cap. LPG has been implicated as an adhesion molecule that mediates the interaction with the midgut epithelium of the sand fly. These adaptations were explored in the context of the structure and function of LPG for the first time on a New World species, Leishmania chagasi. The distinguishing feature of LPG of procyclic L. chagasi consisted of beta1,3-glucose residues that branch off the disaccharide-phosphate repeat units and also are present in the cap. Importantly, metacyclic L. chagasi significantly down-regulate the glucose substitutions in the LPG. The significance of these modifications was demonstrated in the interaction of L. chagasi with its vector Lutzomyia longipalpis. In contrast to procyclic parasites and procyclic LPG, metacyclic parasites and metacyclic LPG were unable to bind to the insect midgut. These results are consistent with the proposal that a New World Leishmania species, similar to Old World species, adapts the expression of terminally exposed sugars of its LPG to mediate parasite-sand fly interactions. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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