4.7 Review

Polyamine-and NADPH-dependent generation of ROS during Helicobacter pylori infection: A blessing in disguise

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 16-27

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.09.024

关键词

Helicobacter pylori; Reactive oxygen species; Polyamines; NADPH oxidase; Gastric cancer

资金

  1. NIH [R01DK053620, R01AT004821, R01CA190612, P01CA028842, P01CA116087]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Review Grant [I01BX001453]
  3. Thomas F. Frist Sr. Endowment
  4. Vanderbilt Center for Mucosal Inflammation and Cancer
  5. Vanderbilt Digestive Disease Research Center [P30DK058404]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Helicobacter pylori is a Gram-negative bacterium that specifically colonizes the gastric ecological niche. During the infectious process, which results in diseases ranging from chronic gastritis to gastric cancer, the host response is characterized by the activation of the innate immunity of gastric epithelial cells and macrophages. These cells thus produce effector molecules such as reactive oxygen species (ROS) to counteract the infection. The generation of ROS in response to H. pylori involves two canonical pathways: 1) the NADPH-dependent reduction of molecular oxygen to generate O-2(.-), which can dismute to generate ROS; and 2) the back-conversion of the polyamine spermine into spermidine through the enzyme spermine oxidase, leading to H2O2 production. Although these products have the potential to affect the survival of bacteria, H. pylori has acquired numerous strategies to counteract their deleterious effects. Nonetheless, ROS-mediated oxidative DNA damage and mutations may participate in the adaptation of H. pylori to its ecological niche. Lastly, ROS have been shown to play a major role in the development of the inflammation and carcinogenesis. It is the purpose of this review to summarize the literature about the production of ROS during H. pylori infection and their role in this infectious gastric disease.

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

4.7
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