4.7 Article

PI3-kinase activation is critical for host barrier permissiveness to Listeria monocytogenes

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 212, 期 2, 页码 165-183

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1084/jem.20141406

关键词

-

资金

  1. AXA PhD fellowship
  2. Pasteur-Paris University International PhD Program fellowship - Institut Carnot
  3. Institut Pasteur
  4. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale
  5. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  6. Ville de Paris
  7. Fondation BNP Paribas
  8. Listress FP7 program
  9. LabEx IBEID
  10. European Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Invasion of nonphagocytic cells, a critical property of Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) that enables it to cross host barriers, is mediated by the interaction of two bacterial surface proteins, InlA and InlB, with their respective receptors E-cadherin and c-Met. Although InlA-E-cadherin interaction is necessary and sufficient for Lm crossing of the intestinal barrier, both InlA and InlB are required for Lm crossing of the placental barrier. The mechanisms underlying these differences are unknown. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3-K) is involved in both InlA- and InlB-dependent pathways. Indeed, InlA-dependent entry requires PI3-K activity but does not activate it, whereas InlB-c-Met interaction activates PI3-K. We show that Lm intestinal target cells exhibit a constitutive PI3-K activity, rendering InlB dispensable for InlA-dependent Lm intestinal barrier crossing. In contrast, the placental barrier does not exhibit constitutive PI3-K activity, making InlB necessary for InlA-dependent Lm placental invasion. Here, we provide the molecular explanation for the respective contributions of InlA and InlB to Lm host barrier invasion, and reveal the critical role of InlB in rendering cells permissive to InlA-mediated invasion. This study shows that PI3-K activity is critical to host barrier permissiveness to microbes, and that pathogens exploit both similarities and differences of host barriers to disseminate.

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

4.7
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