4.5 Article

Interaction of the bacteria Xenorhabdus nematophila (Enterobactericeae) and Bacillus subtilis (Bacillaceae) with the hemocytes of larval Malacosoma disstria (Insecta : Lepidoptera : Lasiocampidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 20-30

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2006.08.010

关键词

Malacosoma; Xenorhabdus; hemocytes; lysozyme; phenoloxidase; plasma protein

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Malacosoma disstria larvae are a pest of deciduous trees. Little is known on the interaction of bacteria with the immediate hemocytic antimicrobial responses of these insects. Incubating dead Xenorhabdus nematophila and Bacillus subtilis with a mixture of serum-free granular cells and plasmatocytes in vitro revealed differential bacterial-hemocyte adhesion and differential discharge of lysozyme and phenoloxidase but not total protein. Although active phenoloxidase adhered equally to both bacterial species, X. nematophila limited enzyme activation whereas B. subtilis enhanced activation. Serum with active phenoloxidase (as opposed to tropolone-inhibited phenoloxidase) and purified insect lysozyme increased bacterial-hemocyte adhesion of both bacterial species. An apolipophorin-III-like protein when incubated with hemocytes, limited their responses to glass slides and bacterial adhesion. However, initial binding of the protein to both bacteria increased granular cell levels with bacteria while lowering the plasmatocyte levels with adhering procaryotes. The protein also increased lysozyme and phenoloxidase activities. Although B. subtilis in vivo elicited a nodulation-based decline in total hemocyte counts and did not affect hemocyte viability, dead X. nematophila elevated hemocyte counts and damaged the hemocytes as lipopolysaccharide levels increased and X nematophila emerged into the hemolymph. Apolipophorin-III-like protein once bound to the bacteria slowed their removal from the hemolymph. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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