ArticleCellular microbiology2013
Endosulfatases SULF1 and SULF2 limit Chlamydia muridarum infection.
Article in Cellular microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging Insights into Protein Post-Translational Modifications in Chlamydia-Host Interactions.The American journal of pathology · 2025Review
- 3-O Sulfated Heparan Sulfate (G2) Peptide Ligand Impairs the Infectivity ofBiomolecules · 2025Article
- Genome-wide association study of chlamydia reinfection in African American women.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- SULF1 Activates the VEGFR2/PI3K/AKT Pathway to Promote the Development of Cervical Cancer.Current cancer drug targets · 2024Article
- Sulfatase 1 and sulfatase 2 as novel regulators of macrophage antigen presentation and phagocytosis.Yeungnam University journal of medicine · 2021Article
- Targeting heparin and heparan sulfate protein interactions.Organic & biomolecular chemistry · 2017Review
- Chlamydia cell biology and pathogenesis.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2016Review
- Characterization of the interaction between the chlamydial adhesin OmcB and the human host cell.Journal of bacteriology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The first step in attachment of Chlamydia to host cells is thought to involve reversible binding to host heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs), polymers of variably sulfated repeating disaccharide units coupled to diverse protein backbones. However, the key determinants of HSPG structure that are involved in Chlamydia binding are incompletely defined. A previous genome-wide Drosophila RNAi screen suggested that the level of HSPG 6-O sulfation rather than the identity of the proteoglycan backbone maybe a critical determinant for binding. Here, we tested in mammalian cells whether SULF1 or SULF2, human endosulfatases, which remove 6-O sulfates from HSPGs, modulate Chlamydia infection. Ectopic expression of SULF1 or SULF2 in HeLa cells, which decreases cell surface HSPG sulfation, diminished C. muridarum binding and decreased vacuole formation. ShRNA depletion of endogenous SULF2 in a cell line that primarily expresses SULF2 augmented binding and increased vacuole formation. C. muridarum infection of diverse cell lines resulted indownregulation of SULF2 mRNA. In a murine model of acute pneumonia, mice genetically deficient in both endosulfatases or in SULF2 alone demonstrated increased susceptibility to C. muridarum lung infection. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that the level of HSPG 6-O sulfation is a critical determinant of C. muridarum infection in vivo and that 6-O endosulfatases are previously unappreciated modulators of microbial pathogenesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.