4.6 Article

Effects of omega-3 and-6 fatty acids on Mycobacterium tuberculosis in macrophages and in mice

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 10, 期 12-13, 页码 1379-1386

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2008.08.004

关键词

Lipid signalling; Host-pathogen interaction; Inflammatory response; Phagosome maturation; Intracellular trafficking; MAP kinase p38

资金

  1. FCT
  2. FEDER [POCI/BIA-BCM/55327/2004, SFRWBD/14284/2003]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [POCI/BIA-BCM/55327/2004] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We recently showed that treatment of macrophages prior to Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection with the pro-inflammatory omega-6 lipid, arachidonic acid (AA) enhanced bacterial killing whereas the anti - inflammatory, omega-3 lipid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) stimulated bacterial growth. Here we tested if these effects were depending on when lipids were added to macrophages: before or during Mycobacterium smegmatis or M. tuberculosis infection. Collectively, our data suggested that a high omega-6 diet might be beneficial against mycobacteriosis, while a high omega-3 diet might be detrimental. AA also stimulated TNF-alpha secretion in M. tuberculosis-infected macrophages whereas EPA inhibited this process. AA strongly activated the MAP kinase p38 in uninfected cells but M. tuberculosis infected cells blocked the ability of AA to activate p38; AA-dependent killing is therefore independent of p38. We therefore tested diets enriched in omega-3 and omega-6 lipids on a mouse model of tuberculosis. In contrast to the in vitro results, the omega-6 tended to increase survival of M. tuberculosis in mice, while omega-3-tended to increase pathogen killing. Overall our results together with those previously reported in the literature suggest that it is almost impossible to predict, at the whole organism level, if a diet enriched in omega-3 or -6 will be beneficial or detrimental to intracellular pathogens. (C) 2008 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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