| Literature DB >> 25887119 |
Godefroy Devevey1,2, Trang Dang3,4, Christopher J Graves5,6, Sarah Murray7, Dustin Brisson8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within-host microbial communities and interactions among microbes are increasingly recognized as important factors influencing host health and pathogen transmission. The microbial community associated with a host is indeed influenced by a complex network of direct and indirect interactions between the host and the lineages of microbes it harbors, but the mechanisms are rarely established. We investigated the within-host interactions among strains of Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, using experimental infections in mice. We used a fully crossed-design with three distinct strains, each group of hosts receiving two sequential inoculations. We used data from these experimental infections to assess the effect of coinfection on bacterial dissemination and fitness (by measuring the transmission of bacteria to xenodiagnostic ticks) as well as the effect of coinfection on host immune response compared to single infection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25887119 PMCID: PMC4359528 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-015-0381-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Figure 1Infection in mouse tissues at Day 90 was dominated by the primary strain. Few tissue samples tested positive for the secondary strains. Ear tissue was less frequently infected than the other organs. n = 4 mice per group except in groups KK and NN where n = 3 mice.
Figure 2Average mouse-to-tick transmission rates (± standard error) of the primary strain. Strain A - blue circles; strain K - red squares; strain N - green triangles. The mouse-to-tick transmission rate of the secondary strain was pooled for the three strain types (purple diamonds). Inf 1 - day of inoculation with primary strain; Inf 2 - day of inoculation with secondary strain. D11, D30, D46, D65 refer to the days of blood sampling and xenodiagnosis. Sac = sacrifice for biopsy of organs (D90).
Mouse-to-tick transmission was more successful for the primary strain than the secondary strain
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A | 100% (21) | 0% | 90% (9) | 10% (1) |
| K | 94% (46) | 6% (3) | 94% (32) | 6% (2) |
| N | 97% (29) | 3% (1) | 100% (7) | 0% |
Transmission success was calculated as the proportion of ticks infected with strain 1 (or strain 2) relative to the total number of infected ticks. The number of ticks infected with each strain are in brackets.
Figure 3The primary strain induced a strong strain-specific adaptive immune response. The secondary strain did not alter immune response. Each panel shows one of nine co-infection treatments. Antibody profiles are similar within columns, which share the primary strain, but differ among rows, which share the secondary strain. This pattern indicates that the primary strain dominated the antibody response and that antibody profiles differed among primary strains (Additional file 1: Table S6 and S7). Arrows indicate the timing of the primary and secondary inoculation. Shown are the mean antibody titers (± S.E.) for total IgG (black diamond), anti-flagellin IgG (white diamond), anti-OspCA IgG (blue circle), anti-OspCK (red square), and anti-OspCN (green triangle). To facilitate viewing, absolute differences in scale among the five antibody variables were removed by standardizing them to z-scores (mean = 0, stdev = 1).