Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21875965›Full record

ArticleInfection and immunity2011

Comparative analysis of EspF variants in inhibition of Escherichia coli phagocytosis by macrophages and inhibition of E. coli translocation through human- and bovine-derived M cells.

Amin Tahoun, Gabriella Siszler, Kevin Spears, Sean McAteer, Jai Tree, Edith Paxton, Trudi L Gillespie, Isabel Martinez-Argudo, Mark A Jepson, Darren J Shaw and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and immunity, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The EspF N-Terminal of EnterohemorrhagicFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Amin TahounDivision of Immunity and Infection, The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK.
Gabriella Siszler
Kevin Spears
Sean McAteer
Jai Tree
Edith Paxton
Trudi L Gillespie
Isabel Martinez-Argudo
Mark A Jepson
Darren J Shaw
Manfred Koegl
Juergen Haas
David L Gally
Arvind Mahajan
Roslin Institute · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBGerman Cancer Research Center · DEUniversity of Bristol · GBKafrelsheikh University · EG

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council 15/D19613Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council D19613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The EspF protein is secreted by the type III secretion system of enteropathogenic and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EPEC and EHEC, respectively). EspF sequences differ between EHEC O157:H7, EHEC O26:H11, and EPEC O127:H6 in terms of the number of SH3-binding polyproline-rich repeats and specific residues in these regions, as well as residues in the amino domain involved in cellular localization. EspF(O127) is important for the inhibition of phagocytosis by EPEC and also limits EPEC translocation through antigen-sampling cells (M cells). EspF(O127) has been shown to have effects on cellular organelle function and interacts with several host proteins, including N-WASP and sorting nexin 9 (SNX9). In this study, we compared the capacities of different espF alleles to inhibit (i) bacterial phagocytosis by macrophages, (ii) translocation through an M-cell coculture system, and (iii) uptake by and translocation through cultured bovine epithelial cells. The espF gene from E. coli serotype O157 (espF(O157)) allele was significantly less effective at inhibiting phagocytosis and also had reduced capacity to inhibit E. coli translocation through a human-derived in vitro M-cell coculture system in comparison to espF(O127) and espF(O26). In contrast, espF(O157) was the most effective allele at restricting bacterial uptake into and translocation through primary epithelial cells cultured from the bovine terminal rectum, the predominant colonization site of EHEC O157 in cattle and a site containing M-like cells. Although LUMIER binding assays demonstrated differences in the interactions of the EspF variants with SNX9 and N-WASP, we propose that other, as-yet-uncharacterized interactions contribute to the host-based variation in EspF activity demonstrated here.

Indexed as

AllelesAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarrier ProteinsCattleCells, CulturedCloning, MolecularCoculture TechniquesEpithelial CellsEscherichia coliEscherichia coli ProteinsGene Expression Regulation, BacterialHumansIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsKanamycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarrier ProteinsEscherichia coli ProteinsEspFU protein, E coliIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsKanamycin

Identifiers

PMID21875965
PMCPMC3257939
OpenAlexW2154883057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.