4.6 Article

Cryptococcal transmigration across a model brain blood-barrier: evidence of the Trojan horse mechanism and differences between Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii strain H99 and Cryptococcus gattii strain R265

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 57-67

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2015.08.017

关键词

Cryptococcus; Monocytes; Brain endothelium; Phagocytosis; Transmigration

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1050106]
  2. Rebecca L. Cooper Foundation
  3. Sydney Medical School Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cryptococcus neofonnans (Cn) and Cryptococcus gattii (Cg) cause neurological disease and cross the BBB as free cells or in mononuclear phagocytes via the Trojan horse mechanism, although evidence for the latter is indirect. There is emerging evidence that Cn and the North American outbreak Cg strain (R265) more commonly cause neurological and lung disease, respectively. We have employed a widely validated in vitro model of the BBB, which utilizes the hCMEC/D3 cell line derived from human brain endothelial cells (HBEC) and the human macrophage-like cell line, THP-1, to investigate whether transport of dual fluorescence-labelled Cn and Cg across the BBB occurs within macrophages. We showed that phagocytosis of Cn by non-interferon (IFN)-gamma stimulated THP-1 cells was higher than that of Cg. Although Cn and Cg-loaded THP-1 bound similarly to TNF-activated HBECs under shear stress, more Cn-loaded macrophages were transported across an intact HBEC monolayer, consistent with the predilection of Cn for CNS infection. Furthermore, Cn exhibited a higher rate of expulsion from transmigrated THP-1 compared with Cg. Our results therefore provide further evidence for transmigration of both Cn and Cg via the Trojan horse mechanism and a potential explanation for the predilection of Cn to cause CNS infection. (C) 2015 Institut Pasteur. Published by 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