Acquisition dynamics of Borrelia burgdorferi and the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis at the host-vector interface.
Acquisition dynamics of Borrelia burgdorferi and the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis at the host-vector interface.
复制标题
伯氏疏螺旋体和人粒细胞埃利希体病病原体在宿主-载体界面的获取动态。
DOI：
10.1089/153036601316977750
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Barthold,SW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hodzic,E;Borjesson,DL;Feng,S;Barthold,SW
在皮肤-媒介界面，定期评估两种共传播的蜱传病原体，伯氏疏螺旋体和人粒细胞埃立克体病病原体（aoHGE）的种群动态 在蜱附着在受感染的小鼠上后。实时定量聚合酶链反应靶向B。伯氏鞭毛蛋白显示皮肤中的螺旋体数量持续减少， 蜱虫附着的部位与非蜱虫附着的部位进行比较。这种现象被发现在早期（2周）和晚期（8周）感染和蜱附着后24，48和72小时。非特异性 炎性刺激、缝合材料植入没有这种作用。与B相反。aoHGEp 44靶基因的拷贝数显著增加 在蜱附着的地方，与非蜱的地方相比。在aoHGE感染的小鼠中，缝合材料的非特异性刺激对aoHGE募集具有与蜱附着相同的作用。这些结果 加强这一概念。Burgdorfer I通过其非系统性趋皮性而不是通过系统性造血获得与其载体相互作用。相反，结果表明， aoHGE依赖于造血获得。因此，这两种共同传播的蜱传病原体利用明显不同的媒介获取手段。
The population dynamics of two cotransmitted tick-borne pathogens,Borrelia burgdorferiand the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis (aoHGE), were assessed at the skin-vector interface at intervals after tick attachment on infected mice. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction targeting theB. burgdorferi flagellingene revealed consistent decreases in spirochete numbers in skin at the sites of tick attachment compared with non-tick attachment sites. This phenomenon was found during early (2 weeks) and late (8 weeks) infection and at 24, 48, and 72 h after tick attachment. A nonspecific inflammatory stimulus, implantation of suture material, did not have this effect. In contrast toB. burgdorferi, copy numbers of an aoHGEp44target gene target were significantly increased at the sites of tick attachment, compared with non-tick sites. The non-specific stimulus of suture material had the same effect on aoHGE recruitment as tick attachment in aoHGE infected mice. These results reinforce the concept thatB. burgdorferiinterfaces with its vector by virtue of its non-systemic dermatotropism, and not via systemic hematogenous acquisition. In contrast, results indicate that the aoHGE relies upon hematogenous acquisition. Thus, these two cotransmitted tick-borne pathogens utilize distinctly different means of vector acquisition.