New study overturns orthodoxy on how macrophages kill bacteria

Apr 27, 2009
New study overturns orthodoxy on how macrophages kill bacteria
Medical microbiology professor James Slauch led a study that challenges decades-old assumptions about how immune cells kill bacteria. Credit: Photo by L. Brian Stauffer, U. of I. News Bureau.

For decades, microbiologists assumed that macrophages, immune cells that can engulf and poison bacteria and other pathogens, killed microbes by damaging their DNA. A new study from the University of Illinois disproves that.

The study, published in the journal PLoS ONE, shows that macrophages focus their most potent poisons, known as reactive (ROS), on targets outside the cytoplasm.

Macrophages are voracious eaters that "swallow" cellular debris and invading organisms. They kill microbes with ROS. All aerobic cells inadvertently produce ROS that can, if left unchecked, damage and other cellular components and cause cell death.

and animal cells contain special enzymes, called superoxide dismutases, which neutralize an important ROS, called superoxide.

Macrophages have harnessed these lethal compounds, dumping large quantities of superoxide onto engulfed bacteria to kill them.

Although macrophages direct ROS against invading bacteria, Salmonella typhimurium, the microbe used in the study, is adept at evading these defenses. The most virulent strains of S. typhimurium can survive and even propagate inside macrophages, eventually emerging to infect more cells.

"It's been assumed that reactive oxygen species kill the bacteria by going into the cytoplasm and causing ," said medical microbiology professor James Slauch, who led the study. "You can find this idea over and over again in review articles and many immunological textbooks, but with no real data to back it up."

To test this hypothesis, Slauch and graduate student Maureen Craig looked at the superoxide dismutases that are part of the bacterial defense against ROS. There are two such enzymes in the cytoplasm of S. typhimurium, called SodA and SodB, and another, SodC, in the periplasm, the space between the bacteria's inner and outer membranes.

One way to understand the role of an enzyme is to see what happens when it is absent, so the researchers looked at mutant S. typhimurium that had the genes for SodA, SodB, or both enzymes, deleted. Deleting the gene for SodA seemed to make no difference, but the SodB mutants were less able to survive and cause disease in a mouse. The double mutants were even more impaired. They were much, much less likely to survive in the mouse than bacteria with only the SodB gene missing. These findings "offer genetic proof" that both enzymes "are involved in the same process," Slauch said.

The fact that the bacterial mutants were less likely to survive in a mouse did not prove, however, that the missing enzymes were protecting the bacteria from ROS generated in the mouse macrophages, Slauch said.

"You get the same result if you grow these mutants in the laboratory in aerobic conditions," he said.

Furthermore, the SodA/SodB mutant bacteria were profoundly weakened - even in a mouse that was unable to produce the potent ROS superoxide in its macrophages. These results suggest that the superoxide dismutases in the bacterial cytoplasm are most likely protecting the bacterium from its own, naturally occurring ROS, Slauch said.

In contrast, deleting the gene encoding the periplasmic superoxide dismutase, SodC, conferred the same defect regardless of whether the cytoplasmic SodA/SodB were present or absent, showing that its function is independent of the cytoplasm.

Moreover, strains lacking SodC were impaired only in the presence of superoxide produced in macrophages; there was no impairment in laboratory media or in mice lacking the ability to make superoxide.

This suggests that the superoxide and other reactive oxygen species are not making it from the macrophage into the bacterial cytoplasm, Slauch said.

"We conclude from all this data that the most sensitive target of ROS in the lies outside the cytoplasm," Slauch said. "We don't know what that target is, but it's clearly not in the ."

Source: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (news : web)

Explore further: Researchers find animals killed by anthrax leave behind enticing grasses for herbivores, allowing disease to spread

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Team IDs weakness in anthrax bacteria

Jan 23, 2008

MIT and New York University researchers have identified a weakness in the defenses of the anthrax bacterium that could be exploited to produce new antibiotics.

Cancer-causing gut bacteria exposed

Sep 22, 2008

Normal gut bacteria are thought to be involved in colon cancer but the exact mechanisms have remained unknown. Now, scientists from the USA have discovered that a molecule produced by a common gut bacterium activates signalling ...

An Achilles heel in cancer cells

Dec 08, 2008

A protein that shields tumor cells from cell death and exerts resistance to chemotherapy has an Achilles heel, a vulnerability that can be exploited to target and kill the very tumor cells it usually protects, researchers ...

Recommended for you

What happens when good genes get lost?

15 hours ago

Scientifically speaking, there is no bad DNA, though we like to blame it for unruly hair, klutziness or poor gardening skills. There is, however, junk DNA.

Plants prepackage beneficial microbes in their seeds

Sep 29, 2014

Plants have a symbiotic relationship with certain bacteria. These 'commensal' bacteria help the pants extract nutrients and defend against invaders – an important step in preventing pathogens from contaminating fruits and ...

User comments : 0