Secondary Cell Wall Polymers of Enterococcus faecalis Are Critical for Resistance to Complement Activation via Mannose-binding Lectin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complement system is part of our first line of defense against invading pathogens. The strategies used by Enterococcus faecalis to evade recognition by human complement are incompletely understood. In this study, we identified an insertional mutant of the wall teichoic acid (WTA) synthesis gene tagB in E. faecalis V583 that exhibited an increased susceptibility to complement-mediated killing by neutrophils. Further analysis revealed that increased killing of the mutant was due to a higher rate of phagocytosis by neutrophils, which correlated with higher C3b deposition on the bacterial surface. Our studies indicated that complement activation via the lectin pathway was much stronger on the tagB mutant compared with wild type. In concordance, we found an increased binding of the key lectin pathway components mannose-binding lectin and mannose-binding lectin-associated serine protease-2 (MASP-2) on the mutant. To understand the mechanism of lectin pathway inhibition by E. faecalis, we purified and characterized cell wall carbohydrates of E. faecalis wild type and V583ΔtagB. NMR analysis revealed that the mutant strain lacked two WTAs with a repeating unit of →6)[α-l-Rhap-(1→3)]β-D-GalpNAc-(1→5)-Rbo-1-P and →6) β-D-Glcp-(1→3) [α-D-Glcp-(1→4)]-β-D-GalpNAc-(1→5)-Rbo-1-P→, respectively (Rbo, ribitol). In addition, compositional changes in the enterococcal rhamnopolysaccharide were noticed. Our study indicates that in E. faecalis, modification of peptidoglycan by secondary cell wall polymers is critical to evade recognition by the complement system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".