Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Invertebrate Microbiology

Heterogeneity in the Attachment and Uptake Mechanisms of the Legionnaires’ Disease Bacterium, Legionella pneumophila, by Protozoan Hosts

Omar S. Harb, Chandrasekar Venkataraman, Bradley J. Haack, Lian-Yong Gao, Yousef Abu Kwaik
Omar S. Harb
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky 40536-0084
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chandrasekar Venkataraman
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky 40536-0084
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bradley J. Haack
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky 40536-0084
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lian-Yong Gao
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky 40536-0084
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yousef Abu Kwaik
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky 40536-0084
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.64.1.126-132.1998
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Invasion and intracellular replication of Legionella pneumophila within protozoa in the environment plays a major role in the transmission of Legionnaires’ disease. Intracellular replication of L. pneumophila within protozoa occurs in a rough endoplasmic reticulum (RER)-surrounded phagosome (Y. Abu Kwaik, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:2022–2028, 1996). Since the subsequent fate of many intracellular pathogens is determined by the route of entry, we compared the mechanisms of attachment and subsequent uptake of L. pneumophila by the two protozoaHartmannella vermiformis and Acanthamoeba polyphaga. Our data provide biochemical and genetic evidence that the mechanisms of attachment and subsequent uptake of L. pneumophila by the two protozoan hosts are, in part, different. First, uptake of L. pneumophila by H. vermiformis is completely blocked by the monovalent sugars galactose and N-acetyl-d-galactosamine, but these sugars partially blocked A. polyphaga. Second, attachment of L. pneumophila to H. vermiformis is associated with a time-dependent and reversible tyrosine dephosphorylation of multiple host proteins. In contrast, only a slight dephosphorylation of a 170-kDa protein of A. polyphaga is detected upon infection. Third, synthesis ofH. vermiformis proteins but not of A. polyphaga proteins is required for uptake of L. pneumophila. Fourth, we have identified L. pneumophila mutants that are severely defective in attachment toA. polyphaga but which exhibit minor reductions in attachment to H. vermiformis and, thus, provide a genetic basis for the difference in mechanisms of attachment to both protozoa. The data indicate a remarkable adaptation of L. pneumophila to attach and invade different protozoan hosts by different mechanisms, yet invasion is followed by a remarkably similar intracellular replication within a RER-surrounded phagosome and subsequent killing of the host cell.

The Legionnaires’ disease bacterium, Legionella pneumophila, is a common etiologic agent of bacterial pneumonia (13, 23, 38, 53). Upon transmission to individuals through aerosols generated in the environment, the bacteria invade and replicate within pulmonary macrophages and epithelial cells (20, 31, 39).

In the environment, L. pneumophila is a parasite of at least 13 species of amoebae and ciliated protozoa (reviewed in reference 24). In many outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease, the bacteria and protozoa have been isolated from the same water source, and the isolated protozoa have been shown to support intracellular multiplication of the bacterial isolate (10, 16, 26, 37). Additionally, in many confirmed cases of Legionnaires’ disease, the bacterium could only be isolated by its capacity to multiply within protozoa (8, 18, 28, 47).

Rowbotham has postulated that the infectious particle involved in transmission of Legionnaires’ disease is L. pneumophila-infected amoebae (44). Several lines of evidence indicate that protozoa play major roles in the continued presence of L. pneumophila in the environment as well as in the infectivity of the bacteria to humans. Intracellular replication of L. pneumophila within protozoa increases bacterial resistance to harsh environmental conditions, which may allow the bacteria to survive extracellularly for prolonged periods of time in the environment (6, 11, 12). Interestingly, it has been recently shown that viability and infectivity of nonculturableL. pneumophila can be “resuscitated” by intracellular replication within protozoa (45). Moreover, intracellular multiplication within protozoa enhances the infectivity of L. pneumophila to human-derived cells (21). These observations may explain why Legionnaires’ disease is not transmitted between individuals and why transmission occurs despite the presence of low numbers of L. pneumophila from the source of aerosol (14, 22, 40).

The hallmark of L. pneumophila infection of humans is the intracellular survival and replication of the bacteria within macrophages in a rough endoplasmic reticulum (RER)-surrounded phagosome (2, 24, 31). The intracellular infection of protozoa is similar to that of macrophages at the ultrastructural and molecular levels (1, 29). In addition, diaminopimelic acid auxotrophs of L. pneumophila are defective in intracellular growth within mammalian and protozoan cells (30a). During intracellular replication, changes in bacterial gene expression are manifested (2-4, 6, 7, 48). Although protein synthesis by the RER is not required for intracellular bacterial replication (2), the role of the RER in intracellular survival is not known.

The mechanisms involved in intracellular trafficking leading to survival and replication of the bacterium within mammalian and protozoan cells are not yet known. Several lines of evidence indicate that the fate of some intracellular pathogens is determined by the route of entry and the specific host cell receptor involved, which may trigger different host cell signal transduction mechanisms (9, 32, 35). We have recently shown that uptake of L. pneumophila by the protozoan Hartmannella vermiformisis mediated by the Gal/GalNAc lectin receptor and is associated with tyrosine dephosphorylation of this receptor (52). In this report, we extended our studies on the host cell processes involved in uptake of L. pneumophila to another protozoan host,Acanthamoeba polyphaga, and compared its host cell response to that of H. vermiformis. The attachment and subsequent cross talk between L. pneumophila and its hosts may play a role in the intracellular fate of the bacterium.

Uptake of L. pneumophila by the protozoan H. vermiformis has been proposed to occur through a microfilament-independent but receptor-mediated mechanism (36), but the processes involved in bacterial uptake by other protozoan hosts have not been reported. This paper describes the investigation of the different mechanisms utilized for the attachment and uptake of L. pneumophila by two protozoa, H. vermiformis and A. polyphaga.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bacterial strains.The virulent AA100 strain ofL. pneumophila has been described previously (3, 5). The L. pneumophila mutants used in this study (GF162, GG104, GB112, GM128, GO128, GP65, GQ262, and GT251) were generated by mini Tn10::kan transposon mutagenesis of the AA100 strain (29, 30). Southern hybridizations were used to confirm that these mutants contained distinct insertions in their chromosomes (29). L. pneumophila were grown on buffered charcoal yeast extract (BCYE) agar plates. Growth of the insertion mutants was on BCYE medium with 20 μg of kanamycin (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.)/ml.

Protozoan culture.Axenic A. polyphagawas obtained from B. S. Fields (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.) and cultured as adherent cells in peptone-yeast-glucose medium (15). H. vermiformisCDC-19 (ATCC 50237) has been cloned and grown in axenic culture as a model for the study of the pathogenesis of L. pneumophila (25). This strain has been isolated from a water source of an outbreak of nosocomial Legionnaires’ disease in a hospital in South Dakota, and its presence in the potable water sites correlated with the presence of the epidemic strain of L. pneumophila (16, 25). H. vermiformis was maintained in ATCC culture medium 1034 (5, 25).

Detection of tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins in H. vermiformis and A. polyphaga upon contact with L. pneumophila.Amoebae were incubated overnight in culture flasks in serum-free axenic medium or PYG medium forH. vermiformis and A. polyphaga, respectively. The amoebae were harvested by centrifugation and were resuspended in the corresponding fresh medium. Aliquots of ∼2 × 107 amoebae/ml were infected by 109L. pneumophila. At several time intervals of coincubation at 37°C, amoebal cell lysates were prepared for Western blotting as described below.

Preparation of cell lysates and Western blotting.After incubation of amoebae with L. pneumophila, infections were stopped by using cold stop buffer (1X PBS, pH 7.2) containing the phosphatase inhibitors NaF (5 mM) and Na3VO4 (1 mM) (Sigma Chemical Co.). Cells were washed three times with cold stop buffer and pelleted by low-speed centrifugation at 735 × gfor 2 min. The supernatant containing bacteria was discarded, and amoebae were lysed by using cold 1% Triton X-100 lysis buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.6], 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM NaF, 1 mM Na3VO4, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 2 μg of leupeptin/ml, and 2 μg of aprotinin/ml). The soluble and insoluble fractions were separated by centrifugation at 16,000 × g for 30 min at 4°C in a microcentrifuge. Proteins from soluble fractions were resolved by sodium dodecyl sulfate–10% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis under reducing conditions. The transfer of proteins onto Immobilon-P membranes (Millipore, Bedford, Mass.) was performed in a Bio-Rad transfer cell (Bio-Rad, Hercules, Calif.) for 1.5 to 2 h with 0.2 M Tris–0.025 M glycine buffer containing 20% (vol/vol) methanol. After transfer of proteins, membranes were incubated for 30 min in a blocking buffer containing 1.5% bovine serum albumin. Membranes were probed with antiphosphotyrosine antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (RC-20) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations (Transduction Laboratories, Lexington, Ky.). The blots were developed by using an enhanced chemiluminescence kit (DuPont NEN, Boston, Mass.) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The specificity of the RC-20 antibody for protozoan phosphotyrosine-containing proteins was confirmed by Western blots probed with another antiphosphotyrosine antibody, clone 4G10 (Upstate Biotechnology Inc., Lake Placid, N.Y.) followed by a horseradish peroxidase-P conjugated goat anti-mouse secondary antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc., Santa Cruz, Calif.) (data not shown).

Inhibition of L. pneumophila uptake by sugars.Infection of amoebae with L. pneumophilawas performed exactly as described previously (5). To analyze the effects of different sugars on invasion of amoebae byL. pneumophila, infections were performed in triplicate in the presence of a 100 mM concentration of the following sugars: galactose (Gal), N-acetyl-d-galactosamine (GalNAc), glucose, lactose, and mannose (Sigma). Sugar solutions were prepared in the medium used to maintain each of the amoebae.

The effects of the sugars on invasion were investigated by gentamicin protection invasion assays. In these assays, A. polyphaga or H. vermiformis was suspended in its respective medium at a concentration of ∼107/ml. Amoebae were incubated in triplicate in the presence of different sugars for 15 min prior to infection. L. pneumophila was added to a final concentration of 108/ml. The samples were incubated at 37°C for 4 h followed by the addition of 50 μg of gentamicin/ml for 1 h to kill extracellular bacteria. Intracellular bacteria are protected from this antibiotic. The amoebae were washed with medium and lysed by the addition of a mild detergent (0.04% Triton X-100). Lysis of the amoebae was monitored microscopically and was complete within 1 min. This treatment had no significant effect on the viability of the bacteria (data not shown). Dilutions were plated on BCYE plates for colony enumeration. The percent invasion was calculated by dividing the number of CFU in the presence of each sugar by the number of CFU in the absence of the sugar.

The effects of the sugars on invasion of amoebae by L. pneumophila were also determined by examination of the growth kinetics of L. pneumophila within H. vermiformis and A. polyphaga in the presence of each sugar. Amoebae were incubated in the presence of each sugar for 15 min prior to infection with L. pneumophila. At several time intervals after infection (1, 3, 5, and 7 days), amoebae were lysed as described above, and samples were diluted and plated on BCYE plates for colony enumeration. The percent invasion was calculated as described above.

Uptake of L. pneumophila by amoebae in the presence of inhibitors of cytoskeletal integrity.Infection of amoebae with L. pneumophila was performed exactly as described previously (5). To analyze the effects of inhibitors of cytoskeletal function on the uptake of L. pneumophila, amoebae were incubated in the presence of each inhibitor for 1 h prior to infection. The inhibitors used were 2 μM cytochalasin D (microfilaments) and 10 μM colchicine (microtubules) (Sigma). Following a 3-h infection, extracellular bacteria were killed by the addition of 50 μg of gentamicin/ml, and intracellular bacteria were plated for enumeration on BCYE plates.

Infection of A. polyphaga by L. pneumophila in the presence of cycloheximide.To assess the effect of cycloheximide on the uptake of L. pneumophila by A. polyphaga, ∼107A. polyphaga was pretreated for 3 h with 200 μg of cycloheximide/ml to inhibit protein synthesis. Amoebae were infected with ∼108L. pneumophila for 4 h in the presence of cycloheximide. Cycloheximide has no detectable effect on the viability or gene expression of L. pneumophila (5). Subsequently, nonadherent bacteria were removed by extensive washing, and extracellular bacteria were killed by gentamicin, as described above. Intracellular bacteria were recovered after lysis of the amoebae and were plated on BCYE for colony enumeration, as described above.

Attachment of L. pneumophila mutants to H. vermiformis and A. polyphaga. H. vermiformis was infected with eight different miniTn10::kan insertion mutants that are defective in attachment to human-derived U937 macrophages (29). To assess the ability of the mutant strains to adhere to A. polyphaga and H. vermiformis, 5 × 105 amoebae were infected for 20 min in triplicate with 107 bacteria of each mutant. Infections were carried out in the presence of 10 mM methylamine to prevent internalization of the bacteria (36). The amoebae were washed three times to remove unattached bacteria and were subsequently lysed with a mild detergent (0.04% Triton X-100). Dilutions were plated on BCYE. Adherence of the mutants was measured by comparison to the adherence of the wild-type strain, AA100, to amoebae in the same assay. To ensure that the inhibitors were effective in the inhibition of uptake, control monolayers infected in the presence of the inhibitor were treated with gentamicin to kill extracellular bacteria. The data showed that methylamine inhibited uptake by A. polyphaga andH. vermiformis by approximately 98% (data not shown).

RESULTS

Effects of sugars on the ability of L. pneumophilato invade A. polyphaga and H. vermiformis.We used two strategies to investigate the roles of several sugars in blocking the attachment and invasion of amoebae byL. pneumophila. First, a gentamicin protection invasion assay was utilized to measure invasion of amoebae in the presence of various sugars (see Materials and Methods). Our data showed that the presence of specific sugars had different effects on bacterial uptake by A. polyphaga and H. vermiformis. Incorporation of 100 mM Gal or GalNAc in the infection assay had a dramatic effect on invasion of H. vermiformis byL. pneumophila (Fig. 1A). These sugar monomers were able to block uptake of L. pneumophila by H. vermiformis by ∼70 and 89%, respectively. Gal and GalNAc are not toxic to amoebae, and their inhibition of uptake of L. pneumophila is specific, dose dependent, and reversible (52). Other sugars (glucose, mannose, and lactose) at a concentration of 100 mM had no detectable effect on the uptake of L. pneumophila by H. vermiformis (Fig. 1A and data not shown).

Fig. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Effects of different sugar monomers on invasion ofH. vermiformis (A) and A. polyphaga(B) by L. pneumophila by gentamicin protection assays. Invasion of amoebae by L. pneumophila was performed in the absence or presence of various sugars. The percent invasion was determined by a comparison between the number of intracellular bacteria in the presence of sugars compared to that in untreated cultures. Values are the means of triplicate samples, and error bars represent standard deviations.

In contrast, Gal and GalNAc had slight effects on the uptake of L. pneumophila by A. polyphaga(Fig. 1B). These data showed that uptake of L. pneumophila by H. vermiformis but not byA. polyphaga is dramatically blocked by Gal and GalNAc.

Second, a growth kinetics assay was performed in the presence of the above sugars. The data confirmed our results obtained from the gentamicin protection invasion assays. Over the 7-day infection, 100 mM Gal or GalNAc caused a dramatic reduction or a complete inhibition in the growth kinetics of L. pneumophila withinH. vermiformis (Fig. 2A). The inhibition of uptake of L. pneumophila byH. vermiformis in the presence of Gal or GalNAc is specific, reversible, and dose dependent (52). Other sugars (glucose, mannose, and lactose) at a concentration of 100 mM had no detectable effect on the uptake of L. pneumophilaby H. vermiformis (Fig. 1A and data not shown).

Fig. 2.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Growth kinetics of L. pneumophila in cocultures with H. vermiformis or A. polyphaga in the absence or presence of different sugars. The bacteria do not replicate extracellularly in the coculture, and thus, the increase in the number of bacteria is due to intracellular replication. Values are the means of triplicate samples, and error bars represent standard deviations.

In contrast, parallel experiments performed with A. polyphaga showed that the presence of Gal or GalNAc caused a slight reduction in the growth kinetics of L. pneumophila (Fig. 2B). These data confirmed the distinct difference in the effects of Gal and GalNAc on the uptake ofL. pneumophila by H. vermiformis andA. polyphaga.

Protein tyrosine phosphorylation in A. polyphaga and H. vermiformis upon attachment to L. pneumophila.Tyrosine phosphorylation of host proteins has been shown to be important in the uptake of many intracellular pathogens (27, 33, 41-43, 49). We have recently shown protein tyrosine dephosphorylation in the protozoanH. vermiformis upon attachment and invasion byL. pneumophila (52). In this report, we extended our studies to another protozoan host, A. polyphaga, and compared its host cell response to that ofH. vermiformis. First, we examined host cell signaling events in H. vermiformis and A. polyphaga upon contact with their bacterial parasite,L. pneumophila. We utilized Western blots of amoebal proteins to examine the status of tyrosine phosphorylation of host proteins in resting amoebae and following contact withL. pneumophila. Examination of H. vermiformis cell lysates showed several proteins that were tyrosine phosphorylated in resting amoebae (Fig.3A, lane 1) that underwent a time-dependent and reversible dephosphorylation upon contact withL. pneumophila. Dephosphorylation of severalH. vermiformis proteins, including those with apparent molecular masses of 190, 170, 130, and 70 kDa, was prominent and evident as early as 5 min (Fig. 3A, lane 2), and was complete by 15 min (Fig. 3A, lane 3), confirming our previous observations (52).

  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Effects of attachment of L. pneumophilato H. vermiformis and A. polyphagaon tyrosine phosphorylation of host proteins. (A) Cell extracts were prepared from uninfected H. vermiformis (lane 1), fromH. vermiformis infected with L. pneumophila for 5 min (lane 2) or for 15 min (lane 3), or from uninfected cells incubated for 15 min (lane 4). Lane 5 represents samples prepared from H. vermiformis infected for 15 min followed by removal of extracellular bacteria and further incubation for 15 min. (B) Extracts were prepared from uninfectedA. polyphaga (lane 1) or from A. polyphaga infected with L. pneumophila for 5 min (lane 2) or for 15 min (lane 3). Lane 4 represents samples prepared from infection with dead L. pneumophila. Western blots were probed with antiphosphotyrosine antibody (see Materials and Methods). Arrows indicate the position of the 170-kDa protein.

To compare the host cell response in H. vermiformis to that of another protozoan host, we also examined the pattern of protein tyrosine phosphorylation in resting A. polyphagaand upon attachment and invasion by L. pneumophila. Many tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins were detected in restingA. polyphaga (Fig. 3B). The pattern of tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins in A. polyphagawas distinctly different from that in H. vermiformis. However, in contrast to H. vermiformis, there was only a slight tyrosine dephosphorylation of a 170-kDa protein inA. polyphaga upon contact with L. pneumophila. These data demonstrated major differences in triggering the biochemical events involved in the attachment, and possibly the subsequent uptake, of L. pneumophila by the two amoebae.

Effects of inhibitors of cytoskeletal integrity on uptake ofL. pneumophila by amoebae.To further characterize the differences in the mechanisms of uptake ofL. pneumophila by H. vermiformis andA. polyphaga, the effects of two inhibitors of cytoskeletal function (cytochalasin D and colchicine) on uptake ofL. pneumophila were examined by gentamicin protection invasion assay. After pre-incubating the amoebae with each inhibitor for 3 h, infections were performed for 3 h. Subsequently, extracellular bacteria were killed, and the number of intracellular bacteria was determined. The data showed no detectable effect by either inhibitor on the uptake of L. pneumophila byA. polyphaga (Fig.4). Similar results were obtained fromH. vermiformis infected with L. pneumophila in the presence of these inhibitors (data not shown). These data indicated that the uptake mechanisms of L. pneumophila by the two amoebae are independent of microfilaments and microtubules. Our data are consistent with previous observations that the uptake of L. pneumophila by H. vermiformis is independent of the microfilaments (36).

Fig. 4.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Effects of disruption of A. polyphaga microtubules (by colchicine) and microfilament (by cytochalasin D) and inhibition of protein synthesis (by cycloheximide) on invasion by L. pneumophila. The percent invasion was determined by dividing the number of intracellular bacteria recovered following the invasion period after killing of extracellular bacteria by the number of intracellular bacteria in untreated samples. Values are the means of triplicate samples, and error bars represent standard deviations.

Effect of inhibition of protozoan protein synthesis on uptake ofL. pneumophila.The uptake of L. pneumophila by H. vermiformis and macrophages is known to differ in the requirement for host protein synthesis. Our previous work showed that uptake of L. pneumophila by macrophages is independent of protein synthesis of the host cell (5). In contrast, synthesis of new host proteins is required for uptake of the bacterium by H. vermiformis(5). We extended these observations to the uptake ofL. pneumophila by A. polyphaga. Our data showed that inhibition of A. polyphaga protein synthesis had no detectable effect on uptake of L. pneumophila (Fig. 4). In contrast, and consistent with our previous observations, inhibition of H. vermiformisprotein synthesis completely inhibited the uptake of L. pneumophila (data not shown) (5). These data further substantiated our observations on the differences in the uptake mechanisms of L. pneumophila by A. polyphaga and H. vermiformis.

Attachment of mutants of L. pneumophila toA. polyphaga and H. vermiformis.We have recently isolated a group of mutants, generated through transposon mutagenesis, that are defective in attachment toA. polyphaga and to U937 human macrophage-like cells (29, 30). We examined the ability of these mutants to attach to H. vermiformis and compared it to their attachment to A. polyphaga. In these assays, attachments were assessed in the presence of an inhibitor of uptake to prevent internalization of the bacteria (see Materials and Methods). Our data showed that the 10 mutants were severely defective in attachment to A. polyphaga but 4 of them (GP65, GM128, GT251, and GM224) attached at higher levels to H. vermiformis (Fig. 5). Interestingly, six of the mutants were severely defective in attachment to bothA. polyphaga and H. vermiformis, suggesting that some of the bacterial ligands involved in attachment to both protozoa may be similar. These data indicated that L. pneumophila possesses multiple ligands involved in distinct attachment to H. vermiformis or A. polyphaga, and some of these may be involved in attachment to both protozoa.

Fig. 5.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Attachment levels of mutants of L. pneumophila to A. polyphaga and H. vermiformis. The number of attached bacteria is represented by the percentage of attached bacteria compared to that of the wild-type, strain AA100, in the presence of an inhibitor of uptake in both amoebae. Values are the means of triplicate measurements, and the error bars represent standard deviations. Some of the error bars cannot be seen due to their small values.

DISCUSSION

The replication of L. pneumophila within free-living amoebae is believed to be an integral component in the transmission of Legionnaires’ disease (24). It has been hypothesized that the intracellular infections of mammalian and protozoan cells by L. pneumophila are mediated by similar mechanisms (1, 19, 24). We have recently shown that 89 distinct insertion mutants of L. pneumophilaexhibited similar defective phenotypes (severe to modest) in their cytotoxicity and intracellular replication within U937 macrophages and A. polyphaga (29), thus providing genetic evidence that many of the mechanisms utilized by L. pneumophila to parasitize the two evolutionarily distant hosts are similar. In contrast, processes involved in the uptake of L. pneumophila by mammalian macrophages have been shown to differ from those by H. vermiformis (5, 36, 52), although the mechanisms of uptake by amoebae are not known.

Previous studies have shown that uptake of L. pneumophila by H. vermiformis is not inhibited by cytochalasin D, an inhibitor of microfilament-dependent endocytosis (36). In this report, we provide evidence that the attachment and uptake of L. pneumophila by the two protozoa, A. polyphaga and H. vermiformis, occur by different mechanisms, adding further complexity to the host-parasite interaction process. First, uptake ofL. pneumophila by H. vermiformis is completely blocked by the monovalent sugars Gal and GalNAc, but these sugars partially blocked A. polyphaga. Second, attachment of L. pneumophila to H. vermiformis is associated with a time-dependent and reversible tyrosine dephosphorylation of multiple host proteins. In contrast, only a slight dephosphorylation of a 170-kDa protein of A. polyphaga is detected upon infection. Third, synthesis ofH. vermiformis proteins but not of A. polyphaga proteins is required for uptake of L. pneumophila. Fourth, we have identified L. pneumophila mutants that are severely defective in attachment toA. polyphaga but which exhibit minor reductions in attachment to H. vermiformis and, thus, provide a genetic basis for the difference in mechanisms of attachment to both protozoa.

The dramatic inhibition of uptake of L. pneumophila byH. vermiformis compared to that by A. polyphaga in the presence of Gal or GalNAc indicates that the receptors utilized by L. pneumophila to attach to the two amoebae may be different or have different affinities. We have recently identified a 170-kDa Gal/GalNAc lectin as one of the tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins in resting H. vermiformis that undergoes dephosphorylation upon attachment and invasion by L. pneumophila (52). Whether the slightly dephosphorylated 170-kDa protein in A. polyphaga, as a result of bacterial infection, is related to the H. vermiformis lectin is still to be determined.

Therefore, A. polyphaga possesses another receptor or a similar receptor but with lower affinity to which L. pneumophila attaches during the initial steps of interaction. The severe defect in attachment of the L. pneumophilamutant strain GM224 to A. polyphaga, but its normal attachment to H. vermiformis, provides strong genetic evidence for the presence of different receptors on both protozoa for attachment of L. pneumophila. Since these mutants are also defective in intracellular replication (29, 30), it is unlikely that expression of the recently described pili ofL. pneumophila is defective in any of these mutants (46). Future characterization of the defective ligand in the mutant GM224 will allow us to characterize the host cell receptor involved in attachment.

Attachment of L. pneumophila to H. vermiformis is associated with tyrosine dephosphorylation of multiple host proteins. In contrast, there is only a slight reduction in the level of tyrosine phosphorylation of a 170-kDa protein (which may be related to the Gal/GalNAc lectin of H. vermiformis) in A. polyphaga upon attachment to L. pneumophila. This host cell response may correlate with the relative inhibition of bacterial uptake by Gal and GalNAc sugars, which was less pronounced in A. polyphaga. These data showed a crucial difference in the initial steps involved in attachment and subsequent cross talk betweenL. pneumophila and two of its protozoan hosts,A. polyphaga and H. vermiformis. Since there are at least 13 species described to be environmental hosts for L. pneumophila (24), it would be interesting to examine the remarkable adaptation and the differential complexity of the interaction of this intracellular parasite with its numerous environmental protozoan hosts.

The fate of some intracellular parasites may be determined by the specific ligand-receptor interaction and subsequent signal transduction involved in uptake by the host cell (9, 32, 35). Our observations of tyrosine dephosphorylation of H. vermiformis proteins, including the Gal/GalNAc receptor, upon contact and uptake of L. pneumophila are rather intriguing since conventional phagocytosis is associated with tyrosine phosphorylation of host cell proteins (9, 52). Interestingly, attachment of many bacterial pathogens to host cell receptors and their exploitation of host cell processes is associated with tyrosine phosphorylation of host cell proteins (27). We speculate that attachment of L. pneumophila toH. vermiformis is associated with disruption of the classical phagocytic process. Additionally, cross talk betweenL. pneumophila and H. vermiformisactivates host cell signaling pathways that will trigger new protein synthesis in H. vermiformis, which is required for subsequent uptake of L. pneumophila (5). In contrast, adherence of L. pneumophila to A. polyphaga induces only minor changes in the host tyrosine phosphorylation, indicating that the initial cross talk does not induce the same set of biochemical signaling events seen in H. vermiformis.

Many facultative intracellular pathogens exploit host signal transduction pathways to their own advantage (27). This exploitation includes induced cytoskeletal rearrangement and subsequent internalization of the bacterium. L. pneumophilainvasion of both H. vermiformis and A. polyphaga, however, remains unaffected by inhibitors of the cytoskeleton that are commonly exploited by other bacterial pathogens (27). Both of these inhibitors have been found to perform their functions in protozoa in ways that are similar to those in mammalian cells (34, 36, 50, 51). Therefore, our observations confirm previous reports that the mechanisms of invasion of amoebae by L. pneumophila are different from those utilized by other intracellular pathogens to invade their mammalian host cells (5, 27, 36).

L. pneumophila is transmitted only from environmental sources, where protozoa play a major factor in transmission of Legionnaires’ disease (24). Intracellular replication within protozoa increases the number of L. pneumophila in the environment (24), resuscitates viability and infectivity of nonculturable bacteria (45), increases bacterial resistance to harsh environmental conditions (6, 11, 12), and enhances bacterial infectivity to human cells and A/J mice (17, 21). Thus, understanding the mechanisms of uptake by protozoa will facilitate the design of measures to prevent uptake of L. pneumophila by protozoa, providing effective preventive approaches for controlling the transmission of Legionnaires’ disease.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

O.S.H. and C.V. made equal contributions to this work.

Y.A.K. was supported by Public Health Service grant no. 1R29AI38410. O.S.H. was supported by predoctoral national research service award no. TA09509.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 5 June 1997.
    • Accepted 18 August 1997.
  • Copyright © 1998 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Abu Kwaik Y.
    The phagosome containing Legionella pneumophila within the protozoan Hartmannella vermiformis is surrounded by the rough endoplasmic reticulum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62 1996 2022 2028
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Abu Kwaik, Y. Induced expression of theLegionella pneumophila gene encoding a 20-kilodalton protein during intracellular infection. Infect. Immun., in press.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Abu Kwaik Y.,
    2. Eisenstein B. I.,
    3. Engleberg N. C.
    Phenotypic modulation by Legionella pneumophila upon infection of macrophages. Infect. Immun. 61 1993 1320 1329
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Abu Kwaik Y.,
    2. Engleberg N. C.
    Cloning and molecular characterization of a Legionella pneumophila gene induced by intracellular infection and by various in vitro stress stimuli. Mol. Microbiol. 13 1994 243 251
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Abu Kwaik Y.,
    2. Fields B. S.,
    3. Engleberg N. C.
    Protein expression by the protozoan Hartmannella vermiformis upon contact with its bacterial parasite Legionella pneumophila. Infect. Immun. 62 1994 1860 1866
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Abu Kwaik Y.,
    2. Gao L.-Y.,
    3. Harb O. S.,
    4. Stone B. J.
    Transcriptional regulation of the macrophage-induced gene (gspA) of Legionella pneumophila and phenotypic characterization of a null mutant. Mol. Microbiol. 24 1997 629 642
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Abu Kwaik Y.,
    2. Pederson L. L.
    The use of differential display-PCR to isolate and characterize a Legionella pneumophila locus induced during the intracellular infection of macrophages. Mol. Microbiol. 21 1996 543 556
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Adeleke A.,
    2. Pruckler J.,
    3. Benson R.,
    4. Rowbotham T.,
    5. Halablab M.,
    6. Fields B. S.
    Legionella-like amoebal pathogens—phylogenetic status and possible role in respiratory disease. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2 1996 225 229
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Allen L. H.,
    2. Aderem A.
    Molecular definition of distinct cytoskeletal structures involved in complement- and Fc receptor-mediated phagocytosis in macrophages. J. Exp. Med. 184 1996 627 637
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Barbaree J. M.,
    2. Fields B. S.,
    3. Feeley J. C.,
    4. Gorman G. W.,
    5. Martin W. T.
    Isolation of protozoa from water associated with a legionellosis outbreak and demonstration of intracellular multiplication of Legionella pneumophila. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 51 1986 422 424
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Barker J.,
    2. Brown M. R. W.,
    3. Collier P. J.,
    4. Farrell I.,
    5. Gilbert P.
    Relationship between Legionella pneumophila and Acanthamoeba polyphaga: physiological status and susceptibility to chemical inactivation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58 1992 2420 2425
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Barker J.,
    2. Scaife H.,
    3. Brown M. R. W.
    Intraphagocytic growth induces an antibiotic-resistant phenotype of Legionella pneumophila. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39 1995 2684 2688
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Bates J. H.,
    2. Capmpbell G. D.,
    3. Baron A. L.
    Microbial etiology of acute pneumonia in hospitalized patients. Chest 101 1992 1005 1012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Bhopal R. S.,
    2. Fallon R. J.,
    3. Buist E. C.,
    4. Black R. J.,
    5. Urquhart J. D.
    Proximity of the home to a cooling tower and risk of non-outbreak Legionnaires’ disease. Br. Med. J. 302 1991 378 383
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Bozue J. A.,
    2. Johnson W.
    Interaction of Legionella pneumophila with Acanthamoeba catellanii: uptake by coiling phagocytosis and inhibition of phagosome-lysosome fusion. Infect. Immun. 64 1996 668 673
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Breiman R. F.,
    2. Fields B. S.,
    3. Sanden G. N.,
    4. Volmer L.,
    5. Meier A.,
    6. Spika J. S.
    Association of shower use with Legionnaires’ disease: possible role of amoebae. JAMA 263 1990 2924 2926
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Brieland J. K.,
    2. Fantone J. C.,
    3. Remick D. G.,
    4. LeGendre M.,
    5. McClain M.,
    6. Engleberg N. C.
    The role of Legionella pneumophila-infected Hartmanella vermiformis as an infectious particle in a murine model of Legionnaires’ disease. Infect. Immun. 65 1997 5330 5333
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Britles R. J.,
    2. Rowbotham T. J.,
    3. Raoult D.,
    4. Harrison T. G.
    Phylogenetic diversity of intra-amoebal legionellae as revealed by 16S rRNA gene sequence comparison. Microbiology 142 1996 3525 3530
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Cianciotto N. P.,
    2. Fields B. S.
    Legionella pneumophila mip gene potentiates intracellular infection of protozoa and human macrophages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89 1992 5188 5191
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cianciotto N. P.,
    2. Stamos J. K.,
    3. Kamp D. W.
    Infectivity of Legionella pneumophila mip mutant for alveolar epithelial cells. Curr. Microbiol. 30 1995 247 250
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. Cirillo J. D.,
    2. Tompkins L. S.,
    3. Falkow S.
    Growth of Legionella pneumophila in Acanthamoeba castellanii enhances invasion. Infect. Immun. 62 1994 3254 3261
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Dennis P. J.,
    2. Wright A. E.,
    3. Rutter D. A.,
    4. Death J. E.,
    5. Jones B. P.
    Legionella pneumophila in aerosols from shower baths. J. Hyg. 93 1984 349 353
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Fang G. D.,
    2. Fine M.,
    3. Orloff J.
    New and emerging etiologies of community-acquired pneumonia with implications for therapy, a prospective multicenter study of 359 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 69 1990 307 316
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Fields B. S.
    The molecular ecology of legionellae. Trends Microbiol. 4 1996 286 290
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Fields B. S.,
    2. Nerad T. A.,
    3. Sawyer T. K.,
    4. King C. H.,
    5. Barbaree J. M.,
    6. Martin W. T.,
    7. Morrill W. E.,
    8. Sanden G. N.
    Characterization of an axenic strain of Hartmannella vermiformis obtained from an investigation of nosocomial legionellosis. J. Protozool. 37 1990 581 583
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Fields B. S.,
    2. Sanden G. N.,
    3. Barbaree J. M.,
    4. Morrill W. E.,
    5. Wadowsky R. M.,
    6. White E. H.,
    7. Feeley J. C.
    Intracellular multiplication of Legionella pneumophila in amoebae isolated from hospital hot water tanks. Curr. Microbiol. 18 1989 131 137
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Finlay B. B.,
    2. Cossart P.
    Exploitation of mammalian host cell functions by bacterial pathogens. Science 276 1997 718 725
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Fry N. K.,
    2. Rowbotham T. J.,
    3. Saunders N. A.,
    4. Embley T. M.
    Direct amplification and sequencing of the 16S ribosomal DNA of an intracellular Legionella species recovered by amoebal enrichment from the sputum of a patient with pneumonia. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 83 1991 165 168
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Gao L.-Y.,
    2. Harb O. S.,
    3. Abu Kwaik Y.
    Utilization of similar mechanisms by Legionella pneumophila to parasitize two evolutionarily distant hosts, mammalian and protozoan cells. Infect. Immun. 65 1997 4738 4746
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    Gao, L.-Y., O. S. Harb, and Y. Abu Kwaik. Submitted for publication.
  31. 30a.↵
    Harb, O. S., J. K. Brieland, and Y. Abu Kwaik.Submitted for publication.
  32. 31.↵
    1. Horwitz M. A.
    Formation of a novel phagosome by the Legionnaires’ disease bacterium (Legionella pneumophila) in human monocytes. J. Exp. Med. 158 1983 1319 1331
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 32.↵
    1. Horwitz M. A.
    The Legionnaires’ disease bacterium (Legionella pneumophila) inhibits phagosome-lysosome fusion in human monocytes. J. Exp. Med. 158 1983 2108 2126
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 33.↵
    1. Ireton K.,
    2. Payrastre B.,
    3. Chap H.,
    4. Ogawa W.,
    5. Sakaue H.,
    6. Kasuga M.,
    7. Cossart P.
    A role for phosphoinositide 3-kinase in bacterial adhesion. Science 274 1996 780 782
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 34.↵
    1. Isenberg G.,
    2. Aebi U.,
    3. Pollard T. D.
    An actin-binding protein from Acanthamoeba regulates actin filament polymerization and interactions. Nature 288 1980 455 459
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 35.↵
    1. Joiner K. A.,
    2. Fuhrman S. A.,
    3. Miettinen H. M.,
    4. Kasper L. H.,
    5. Mellman I.
    Toxoplasma gondii: fusion competence of parasitophorous vacuoles in Fc receptor-transfected fibroblasts. Science 249 1990 641 646
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 36.↵
    1. King C. H.,
    2. Fields B. S.,
    3. Shotts E. B. Jr.,
    4. White E. H.
    Effects of cytochalasin D and methylamine on intracellular growth of Legionella pneumophila in amoebae and human monocyte-like cells. Infect. Immun. 59 1991 758 763
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 37.↵
    1. Kurtz J. B.,
    2. Bartlett C. L. R.,
    3. Newton U. A.,
    4. White R. A.,
    5. Jones N. L.
    Legionella pneumophila in cooling tower systems. J. Hyg. 88 1982 369 381
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 38.↵
    1. Marston B. J.
    Epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia. Infect. Dis. Clin. Pract. 4 1995 S232 S239
    OpenUrl
  40. 39.↵
    1. Mody C. H.,
    2. Paine R. III,
    3. Shahrabadi M. S.,
    4. Simon R. H.,
    5. Pearlman E.,
    6. Eisenstein B. I.,
    7. Toews G. B.
    Legionella pneumophila replicates within rat alveolar epithelial cells. J. Infect. Dis. 167 1993 1138 1145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 40.↵
    1. O’Brein S. J.,
    2. Bhopal R. S.
    Legionnaires’ disease: the infective dose paradox. Lancet 342 1993 5 6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 41.↵
    1. Rosenshine I.,
    2. Duronio V.,
    3. Finlay B. B.
    Tyrosine protein kinase inhibitors block invasin-promoted bacterial uptake by epithelial cells. Infect. Immun. 60 1992 2211 2217
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 42.↵
    1. Rosenshine I.,
    2. Ruschkowski S.,
    3. Foubister V.,
    4. Finlay B. B.
    Salmonella typhimurium invasion of epithelial cells: role of induced host cell tyrosine protein phosphorylation. Infect. Immun. 62 1994 4969 4974
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 43.↵
    1. Rosenshine I.,
    2. Ruschkowski S.,
    3. Stein M.,
    4. Reinscheid D. J.,
    5. Mills S. D.,
    6. Finlay B. B.
    A pathogenic bacterium triggers epithelial signals to form a functional bacterial receptor that mediates actin pseudopod formation. EMBO J. 15 1996 2613 2624
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 44.↵
    1. Rowbotham T. J.
    Preliminary report on the pathogenicity of Legionella pneumophila for freshwater and soil amoebae. J. Clin. Pathol. 33 1980 1179 1183
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 45.↵
    1. Steinert M.,
    2. Emody L.,
    3. Amann R.,
    4. Hacker J.
    Resuscitation of viable but nonculturable Legionella pneumophila Philadelphia JR32 by Acanthamoeba castellanii. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63 1997 2047 2053
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 46.↵
    Stone, B. J., and Y. Abu Kwaik Submitted for publication.
  48. 47.↵
    1. Stout J. E.,
    2. Joly J.,
    3. Para M.,
    4. Plouffe J.,
    5. Ciesielski C.,
    6. Blaser M. J.,
    7. Yu V. L.
    Comparison of molecular methods for subtyping patients and epidemiologically linked environmental isolates of Legionella pneumophila. J. Infect. Dis. 157 1988 486 495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 48.↵
    1. Susa M.,
    2. Hacker J.,
    3. Marre R.
    De novo synthesis of Legionella pneumophila antigens during intracellular growth in phagocytic cells. Infect. Immun. 64 1996 1679 1684
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 49.↵
    1. Tang P.,
    2. Rosenshine I.,
    3. Finlay B. B.
    Listeria monocytogenes, an invasive bacterium, stimulates MAP kinase upon attachment to epithelial cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 5 1994 455 464
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 50.↵
    1. Udezulu I. A.,
    2. Leitch G. J.
    A membrane-associated neuraminidase in Entamoeba histolytica trophozoites. Infect. Immun. 55 1987 181 186
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 51.↵
    1. Vazquez-Prado J.,
    2. Meza I.
    Fibronectin “receptor” in Entamoeba histolytica: purification and association with the cytoskeleton. Arch. Med. Res. 23 1992 125 128
    OpenUrlPubMed
  53. 52.↵
    1. Venkataraman C.,
    2. Haack B. J.,
    3. Bondada S.,
    4. Abu Kwaik Y.
    Identification of a Gal/GalNAc lectin in the protozoan Hartmanella vermiformis as a potential receptor for attachment and invasion by the Legionnaires’ disease bacterium, Legionella pneumophila. J. Exp. Med. 186 1997 537 547
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 53.↵
    1. Woodhead M. A.,
    2. Macfarlane J. T.,
    3. McCracken J. S.,
    4. Rose D. H.,
    5. Finch R. G.
    Prospective study of the aetiology and outcome of pneumonia in the community. Lancet i 1987 671 674
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Heterogeneity in the Attachment and Uptake Mechanisms of the Legionnaires’ Disease Bacterium, Legionella pneumophila, by Protozoan Hosts
Omar S. Harb, Chandrasekar Venkataraman, Bradley J. Haack, Lian-Yong Gao, Yousef Abu Kwaik
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jan 1998, 64 (1) 126-132; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.64.1.126-132.1998

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Heterogeneity in the Attachment and Uptake Mechanisms of the Legionnaires’ Disease Bacterium, Legionella pneumophila, by Protozoan Hosts
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Heterogeneity in the Attachment and Uptake Mechanisms of the Legionnaires’ Disease Bacterium, Legionella pneumophila, by Protozoan Hosts
Omar S. Harb, Chandrasekar Venkataraman, Bradley J. Haack, Lian-Yong Gao, Yousef Abu Kwaik
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jan 1998, 64 (1) 126-132; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.64.1.126-132.1998
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Acanthamoeba
bacterial adhesion
Hartmannella
Legionella pneumophila
Legionnaires' disease

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336