Evidence map›Paper›PMID 3522428›Full record

ArticleInfection and immunity1986

Bactericidal action of eosinophils from normal human blood.

M Yazdanbakhsh, C M Eckmann, A A Bot, D Roos

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and immunity, 1986. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. SputumInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Eosinophils and Bacteria, the Beginning of a Story.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Eosinophils in infection and intestinal immunity.Current opinion in gastroenterology · 2013
    Review
  12. Article
  13. The role of eosinophils in non-parasitic infections.Endocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2011
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

4 authors.

M Yazdanbakhsh
C M Eckmann
A A Bot
D Roos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability of normal human eosinophils to ingest and kill Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli was investigated and compared with the reactions shown by neutrophils from the same donors. The rate of phagocytosis of S. aureus by eosinophils was 50% of that shown by neutrophils. Unlike neutrophils, eosinophils were not able to kill ingested S. aureus at low bacterium/phagocyte ratios. The degree of S. aureus killing increased with increasing ratios, being equal to that of neutrophils when bacterium/phagocyte ratios of about 15 were used. This was probably due to a better triggering of the eosinophil oxidase system at high bacterium/phagocyte ratios. The early kinetics of the association of bacteria with eosinophils, the perforation of the bacterial envelope and the inactivation of bacterial proteins, was monitored in the ML-35 mutant strain of E. coli. The association of E. coli with eosinophils was 70% of that with neutrophils. Eosinophils had only 25% of the capacity of neutrophils to perforate the E. coli envelope. E. coli loses its colony-forming ability when the bacterial envelope has been perforated, indicating that eosinophils also kill E. coli more slowly than do neutrophils. This was confirmed with a plating assay for colony formation. The perforation of E. coli is independent of peroxidase-mediated reactions. Hence, the defective bactericidal action of eosinophils is probably not related to the differences between myeloperoxidase and eosinophil peroxidase. On the other hand, the inactivation of bacterial proteins is peroxidase dependent and was also seen to occur to a lesser extent in eosinophils compared with neutrophils. We conclude that eosinophils ingest E. coli but only slowly perforate (kill) these bacteria and barely inactivate the bacterial enzymes. In contrast, neutrophils quickly ingest and perforate (kill) E. coli and quickly inactivate the bacterial enzymes.

Indexed as

Blood Bactericidal ActivityEosinophilsEscherichia coliHumansKineticsLuminescent MeasurementsNeutrophilsOxygen ConsumptionPhagocytosisStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

PMID3522428
PMCPMC260096

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.