Intestinal epithelial barrier and mucosal immunity

Müller, Claudia; Autenrieth, Ingo B.; Peschel, Andreas

doi:10.1007/s00018-005-5034-2

Cited by 166 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 and maintained a normal body state at later stage of infection, the heat map of expressions of immunity-related genes was clustered similarly with control groups. Coincidentally, this is obvious in the intestinal environment of organisms where the associated microorganisms forms a set of sophisticated immune mechanism to tolerate the microorganisms in symbiosis (Müller et al, 2005;Macdonald and Monteleone, 2005). An immune regulator of Drosophila, PGRP-LC-interacting inhibitor of IMD signaling (PIMS), decreases the release of peptidoglycan recognition protein (PGRP-LC) from the plasma membrane hence block the IMD pathway of Drosophila to tolerate the symbiosis of bacteria (Lhocine et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential immune responses of Monochamus alternatus against symbiotic and entomopathogenic fungi

Zhang

Meng

Ning

et al. 2017

Sci. China Life Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monochamus alternatus, the main vector beetles of invasive pinewood nematode, has established a symbiotic relationship with a native ectotrophic fungal symbiont, Sporothrix sp. 1, in China. The immune response of M. alternatus to S. sp. 1 in the coexistence of beetles and fungi is, however, unknown. Here, we report that immune responses of M. alternatus pupae to infection caused by ectotrophic symbiotic fungus S. sp. 1 and entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana differ significantly. The S. sp. 1 did not kill the beetles while B. bassiana killed all upon injection. The transcriptome results showed that the numbers of differentially expressed genes in M. alternatus infected with S. sp. 1 were 2-fold less than those infected with B. bassiana at 48 hours post infection. It was noticed that Toll and IMD pathways played a leading role in the beetle's immune system when infected by symbiotic fungus, but upon infection by entomopathogenic fungus, only the Toll pathway gets triggered actively. Furthermore, the beetles could tolerate the infection of symbiotic fungi by retracing their Toll and IMD pathways at 48 h. This study provided a comprehensive sequence resource of M. alternatus transcriptome for further study of the immune interactions between host and associated fungi.Monochamus alternatus, symbiotic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, RNA-seq, immune signaling pathway Citation:Zhang, W., Meng, J., Ning, J., Qin, P., Zhou, J., Zou, Z., Wang, Y., Jiang, H., Ahmad, F., Zhao, L., and Sun, J. (2017). Differential immune responses of Monochamus alternatus against symbiotic and entomopathogenic fungi. Sci China Life Sci 60, 902-910.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential immune responses of Monochamus alternatus against symbiotic and entomopathogenic fungi

Zhang

Meng

Ning

et al. 2017

Sci. China Life Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the intestinal barrier has not only a nutritional but also a key immunological role by regulating permeability to luminal antigens and therefore their access to components of the mucosal immune system. This barrier also involves products that epithelial cells secrete into the lumen such as mucus, defensins, secretory-immunoglobulin A (sIgA) and other enzymes and peptides [3][4][5][6]. These products, influenced by intestinal motility, generate a dynamic fluid interface that helps to wash away noxious substances and prevents their binding to the mucosal surface.…”

Section: The Intestinal Barriermentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Stress-Induced Intestina Damage

Gareau

Silva

Perdue

2008

CMM

238

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stress has been shown to have both central and peripheral effects, promoting psychological illness (such as anxiety and depression), as well influencing peripheral disease in the intestine. Stress in humans can exacerbate symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), lowering visceral pain thresholds and decreasing mucosal barrier function. Studies in rodents have revealed that both acute and chronic exposure to stressors can lead to pathophysiology of the small and large intestine, including altered ion secretion and increased epithelial permeability (by both transcellular and paracellular pathways). Prolonged exposure to stress can induce low-grade inflammation, cause ultrastructural epithelial abnormalities, and alter bacterial-host interactions allowing greater microbial translocation. In this review, we discuss the stress response and the effects of both acute and chronic stress to induce pathophysiological damage to the gut. We present the potential pathways involved, and the proposed mechanisms of action mediating the effects. Furthermore, we explore the impact of early life stress on colonic physiology in neonatal rodents and the implications for gut dysfunction in adulthood.

show abstract

“…Enzymes expressed by Paneth cells attack the bacterial membranes. Lysozyme hydrolyzes the glycosidic linkage of wall peptidoglycan [81] and phospholipase A 2 bacterial membrane phospholipids [82]. Defensins comprise a major family of membrane-disrupting peptides in vertebrates.…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Action Of Probioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probiotic Mechanisms of Action

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probiotics are live microorganisms that provide health benefits to the host when ingested in adequate amounts. The strains most frequently used as probiotics include lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria. Probiotics have demonstrated significant potential as therapeutic options for a variety of diseases, but the mechanisms responsible for these effects have not been fully elucidated yet. Several important mechanisms underlying the antagonistic effects of probiotics on various microorganisms include the following: modification of the gut microbiota, competitive adherence to the mucosa and epithelium, strengthening of the gut epithelial barrier and modulation of the immune system to convey an advantage to the host. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that probiotics communicate with the host by pattern recognition receptors, such as toll-like receptors and nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-containing protein-like receptors, which modulate key signaling pathways, such as nuclear factor-ĸB and mitogen-activated protein kinase, to enhance or suppress activation and influence downstream pathways. This recognition is crucial for eliciting measured antimicrobial responses with minimal inflammatory tissue damage. A clear understanding of these mechanisms will allow for appropriate probiotic strain selection for specific applications and may uncover novel probiotic functions. The goal of this systematic review was to explore probiotic modes of action focusing on how gut microbes influence the host.

show abstract

Intestinal epithelial barrier and mucosal immunity

Cited by 166 publications

References 110 publications

Differential immune responses of Monochamus alternatus against symbiotic and entomopathogenic fungi

Differential immune responses of Monochamus alternatus against symbiotic and entomopathogenic fungi

Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Stress-Induced Intestina Damage

Probiotic Mechanisms of Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About