4.6 Article

Hijacking of Rho GTPases during bacterial infection

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 319, 期 15, 页码 2329-2336

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2013.04.021

关键词

Cellular microbiology; Bacteria; Toxins; Virulence effectors; Cytoskeleton; Epithelium; Endothelium; TEM; Diapedesis; Cell cycle; Rho GTPases; RhoA; Rac1; Cdc42; Actin; Ubiquitin; cAMP; Proteasome

资金

  1. INSERM
  2. Labellisation Ligue contre le Cancer
  3. Foundation Infectiopole Sud, the Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR 11BSV3 004 01]
  4. Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer [SFI20111203659, SFI20111203671, SFI20121205382]
  5. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB746, SFB850, AK6/16-4, 17-1, 20-1, 22-1, 23-1, 24-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly pathogenic bacteria, including Yersinia, Salmonella, E. coli and Clostridia, produce an amazing array of virulence factors that target Rho proteins. These pathogens exploit and/or impair many aspects of Rho protein activities by activating or inhibiting these key molecular switches. Here, we describe examples illustrating how modulation of Rho protein activity is the underlying molecular mechanism used by pathogens to disrupt host epithelial/endothelial barriers, paralyze immune cell migration and phagocytic functions, invade epithelial cells, replicate, and form reservoirs or disseminate in epithelia. Remarkably, emerging evidence points to the capacity of target cells to not only perceive the imbalance of Rho activity induced by virulence factors but also to respond by stimulating the production of anti-microbial responses that alert the host to the pathogenic threat. Furthermore, toxins that activate Rho proteins have been extremely useful in revealing the exquisite cellular regulations of these GTPases, notably by the ubiquitin and proteasome system. Finally, a number of studies indicate that toxins targeting Rho proteins have great potential in the development of new therapeutic tools. (C) 2013 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

4.6
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