4.5 Review

Aspergillus-Pseudomonas interaction, relevant to competition in airways

期刊

MEDICAL MYCOLOGY
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 S228-S232

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mmy/myy087

关键词

Aspergillus fumigatus; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; microbial interaction; cystic fibrosis; pyoverdine

资金

  1. Child Health Research Institute, Stanford Transdisciplinary Initiatives Program, CIMR [3777]
  2. Austrian Science Fund/Infect-ERA program (FWF grant) [I1616/Infect-ERA]
  3. HOROS doctoral program [W1253]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In airways of immunocompromised patients and individuals with cystic fibrosis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Aspergillus fumigatus are the most common opportunistic bacterial and fungal pathogens. Both pathogens form biofilms and cause acute and chronic illnesses. Previous studies revealed that P. aeruginosa is able to inhibit A. fumigatus biofilms in vitro. While numerous P. aeruginosa molecules have been shown to affect A. fumigatus, there never has been a systematic approach to define the principal causative agent. We studied 24 P. aeruginosa mutants, with deletions in genes important for virulence, iron acquisition, or quorum sensing, for their ability to interfere with A. fumigatus biofilms. Cells, planktonic or biofilm culture filtrates of four P. aeruginosa mutants, pvdD-pchE-, pvdD-, lasR-rhlR-, and lasR-, inhibited A. fumigatus biofilm metabolism or planktonic A. fumigatus growth significantly less than P. aeruginosa wild type. The common defect of these four mutants was a lack in the production of the P. aeruginosa siderophore pyoverdine. Pure pyoverdine affected A. fumigatus biofilm metabolism, and restored inhibition by the above mutants. In lungs from cystic fibrosis patients, pyoverdine production and antifungal activity correlated. The key inhibitory mechanism for pyoverdine was iron-chelation and denial of iron to A. fumigatus. Further experiments revealed a counteracting, self-protective mechanism by A. fumigatus, based on A. fumigatus siderophore production.

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