Cargando…

Microbial Invasion vs. Tick Immune Regulation

Ticks transmit a greater variety of pathogenic agents that cause disease in humans and animals than any other haematophagous arthropod, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, babesiosis, tick-borne encephalitis, Crimean Congo haemorhagic fever, and man...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sonenshine, Daniel E., Macaluso, Kevin R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5591838/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28929088
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00390
_version_ 1783262790724616192
author Sonenshine, Daniel E.
Macaluso, Kevin R.
author_facet Sonenshine, Daniel E.
Macaluso, Kevin R.
author_sort Sonenshine, Daniel E.
collection PubMed
description Ticks transmit a greater variety of pathogenic agents that cause disease in humans and animals than any other haematophagous arthropod, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, babesiosis, tick-borne encephalitis, Crimean Congo haemorhagic fever, and many others (Gulia-Nuss et al., 2016). Although diverse explanations have been proposed to explain their remarkable vectorial capacity, among the most important are their blood feeding habit, their long term off-host survival, the diverse array of bioactive molecules that disrupt the host's natural hemostatic mechanisms, facilitate blood flow, pain inhibitors, and minimize inflammation to prevent immune rejection (Hajdušek et al., 2013). Moreover, the tick's unique intracellular digestive processes allow the midgut to provide a relatively permissive microenvironment for survival of invading microbes. Although tick-host-pathogen interactions have evolved over more than 300 million years (Barker and Murrell, 2008), few microbes have been able to overcome the tick's innate immune system, comprising both humoral and cellular processes that reject them. Similar to most eukaryotes, the signaling pathways that regulate the innate immune response, i.e., the Toll, IMD (Immunodeficiency) and JAK-STAT (Janus Kinase/ Signal Transducers and Activators of Transcription) also occur in ticks (Gulia-Nuss et al., 2016). Recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) on the microbial surface triggers one or the other of these pathways. Consequently, ticks are able to mount an impressive array of humoral and cellular responses to microbial challenge, including anti-microbial peptides (AMPs), e.g., defensins, lysozymes, microplusins, etc., that directly kill, entrap or inhibit the invaders. Equally important are cellular processes, primarily phagocytosis, that capture, ingest, or encapsulate invading microbes, regulated by a primordial system of thioester-containing proteins, fibrinogen-related lectins and convertase factors (Hajdušek et al., 2013). Ticks also express reactive oxygen species (ROS) as well as glutathione-S-transferase, superoxide dismutase, heat shock proteins and even protease inhibitors that kill or inhibit microbes. Nevertheless, many tick-borne microorganisms are able to evade the tick's innate immune system and survive within the tick's body. The examples that follow describe some of the many different strategies that have evolved to enable ticks to transmit the agents of human and/or animal disease.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5591838
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55918382017-09-19 Microbial Invasion vs. Tick Immune Regulation Sonenshine, Daniel E. Macaluso, Kevin R. Front Cell Infect Microbiol Microbiology Ticks transmit a greater variety of pathogenic agents that cause disease in humans and animals than any other haematophagous arthropod, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, babesiosis, tick-borne encephalitis, Crimean Congo haemorhagic fever, and many others (Gulia-Nuss et al., 2016). Although diverse explanations have been proposed to explain their remarkable vectorial capacity, among the most important are their blood feeding habit, their long term off-host survival, the diverse array of bioactive molecules that disrupt the host's natural hemostatic mechanisms, facilitate blood flow, pain inhibitors, and minimize inflammation to prevent immune rejection (Hajdušek et al., 2013). Moreover, the tick's unique intracellular digestive processes allow the midgut to provide a relatively permissive microenvironment for survival of invading microbes. Although tick-host-pathogen interactions have evolved over more than 300 million years (Barker and Murrell, 2008), few microbes have been able to overcome the tick's innate immune system, comprising both humoral and cellular processes that reject them. Similar to most eukaryotes, the signaling pathways that regulate the innate immune response, i.e., the Toll, IMD (Immunodeficiency) and JAK-STAT (Janus Kinase/ Signal Transducers and Activators of Transcription) also occur in ticks (Gulia-Nuss et al., 2016). Recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) on the microbial surface triggers one or the other of these pathways. Consequently, ticks are able to mount an impressive array of humoral and cellular responses to microbial challenge, including anti-microbial peptides (AMPs), e.g., defensins, lysozymes, microplusins, etc., that directly kill, entrap or inhibit the invaders. Equally important are cellular processes, primarily phagocytosis, that capture, ingest, or encapsulate invading microbes, regulated by a primordial system of thioester-containing proteins, fibrinogen-related lectins and convertase factors (Hajdušek et al., 2013). Ticks also express reactive oxygen species (ROS) as well as glutathione-S-transferase, superoxide dismutase, heat shock proteins and even protease inhibitors that kill or inhibit microbes. Nevertheless, many tick-borne microorganisms are able to evade the tick's innate immune system and survive within the tick's body. The examples that follow describe some of the many different strategies that have evolved to enable ticks to transmit the agents of human and/or animal disease. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5591838/ /pubmed/28929088 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00390 Text en Copyright © 2017 Sonenshine and Macaluso. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Microbiology
Sonenshine, Daniel E.
Macaluso, Kevin R.
Microbial Invasion vs. Tick Immune Regulation
title Microbial Invasion vs. Tick Immune Regulation
title_full Microbial Invasion vs. Tick Immune Regulation
title_fullStr Microbial Invasion vs. Tick Immune Regulation
title_full_unstemmed Microbial Invasion vs. Tick Immune Regulation
title_short Microbial Invasion vs. Tick Immune Regulation
title_sort microbial invasion vs. tick immune regulation
topic Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5591838/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28929088
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00390
work_keys_str_mv AT sonenshinedaniele microbialinvasionvstickimmuneregulation
AT macalusokevinr microbialinvasionvstickimmuneregulation