3.9 Article

Evaluation of invertebrate infection models for pathogenic corynebacteria

期刊

FEMS IMMUNOLOGY AND MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 65, 期 3, 页码 413-421

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00963.x

关键词

Acanthamoeba; Caenorhabtitis elegans; Corynebacterium diphtheriae; Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis; Corynebacterium ulcerans; Galleria mellonella

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB 796, B5]
  2. Medical Research Scotland [FRG-422]
  3. Society for General Microbiology Vacation Studentship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For several pathogenic bacteria, model systems for hostpathogen interactions were developed, which provide the possibility of quick and cost-effective high throughput screening of mutant bacteria for genes involved in pathogenesis. A number of different model systems, including amoeba, nematodes, insects, and fish, have been introduced, and it was observed that different bacteria respond in different ways to putative surrogate hosts, and distinct model systems might be more or less suitable for a certain pathogen. The aim of this study was to develop a suitable invertebrate model for the human and animal pathogens Corynebacterium diphtheriae, Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis, and Corynebacterium ulcerans. The results obtained in this study indicate that Acanthamoeba polyphaga is not optimal as surrogate host, while both Caenorhabtitis elegans and Galleria larvae seem to offer tractable models for rapid assessment of virulence between strains. Caenorhabtitis elegans gives more differentiated results and might be the best model system for pathogenic corynebacteria, given the tractability of bacteria and the range of mutant nematodes available to investigate the host response in combination with bacterial virulence. Nevertheless, Galleria will also be useful in respect to innate immune responses to pathogens because insects offer a more complex cell-based innate immune system compared with the simple innate immune system of C.similar to elegans.

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

3.9
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