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
    • 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 IAI
    • 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
Infection and Immunity
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • 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 IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Molecular Pathogenesis

Delineation of Borrelia burgdorferi p66 Sequences Required for Integrin αIIbβ3 Recognition

Gillianne Defoe, Jenifer Coburn
Gillianne Defoe
Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jenifer Coburn
Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.5.3455-3459.2001
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The outer membrane protein p66 of the Lyme disease agent,Borrelia burgdorferi, has been identified as a candidate ligand for β3-chain integrins. To identify portions of p66 required for integrin recognition, fusions of maltose-binding protein to fragments of p66 were tested for binding to integrin αIIbβ3, and synthetic peptides derived from the p66 amino acid sequence were tested for the ability to inhibitB. burgdorferi attachment to the same integrin. The data identify two noncontiguous segments of p66 that are important for αIIbβ3 recognition, suggesting that, as is true for other integrin ligands, the tertiary structure of p66 is important for receptor recognition.

Lyme disease is caused by the tick-borne spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Clinical manifestations of B. burgdorferi infection may affect the skin, joints, heart, and nervous system. These manifestations are complex and reflect both the spread of the organism from the site of the tick bite to the affected tissues and the host response to B. burgdorferi (12, 18, 29). In the absence of appropriate antibiotic therapy, B. burgdorferi can establish persistent infection in humans, in animal models of infection, and in the wild rodents that serve as reservoirs of the organism. Interactions with host tissue matrix components and cells are likely to play key roles in the dissemination of B. burgdorferi and the establishment of persistent infection.

In support of this hypothesis, a number of laboratories have demonstrated that B. burgdorferi binds to several types of cultured mammalian cells, including endothelial cells, glial cells, epithelial cells, and fibroblasts (10, 15, 30, 31).B. burgdorferi has also been shown to bind to platelets (6, 9) and to cultured tick cells (20). Recent studies have documented several adhesion pathways used byB. burgdorferi to bind to cell surfaces or to components of the extracellular matrix. Two related B. burgdorferiproteins that bind to the collagen-associated proteoglycan decorin have been characterized (13, 14); in addition, B. burgdorferi proteins that bind to heparan and dermatan sulfate proteoglycans (17, 23) and fibronectin (11, 19, 25) have been identified. Less is known of the bacterial molecules involved in binding to glycosphingolipids (1) or of the relevance of any of the aforementioned interactions to human disease. It is likely that, as for other pathogenic bacteria, the interaction between B. burgdorferi and the host is complex and mediated by multiple bacterial virulence factors.

B. burgdorferi also binds to integrins αIIbβ3 and αvβ3(6, 7). Integrins are divalent cation-dependent, heterodimeric receptors that normally mediate a variety of cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix interactions. αvβ3 (vitronectin receptor) expression is widespread, but αIIbβ3(fibrinogen receptor) is expressed only by platelets and megakaryocytes, and requires activation prior to binding B. burgdorferi and its normal mammalian ligands (16, 28). The ligand specificities of the β3-chain integrins overlap but are not identical (16). Several integrins, including αIIbβ3 and αvβ3, recognize the amino acid sequence Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) (16), and peptides containing this sequence can block receptor function. Binding of B. burgdorferi to each of the β3-chain integrins can be inhibited by EDTA, cyclic and linear RGD peptides, and appropriate blocking monoclonal antibodies (6, 7). Determination of the pathogenic role of β3-chain integrin binding by Lyme disease spirochetes awaits the definitive identification of theB. burgdorferi protein(s) involved and the generation of appropriate mutant strains derived from an infectious parent.

We previously identified a B. burgdorferi protein, p66, that is an excellent candidate ligand for the β3-chain integrins (5). p66 is recognized by a majority of Lyme disease patient sera and is therefore expressed by the spirochete during infection. p66 was previously shown to be localized on the surface of B. burgdorferi (4, 24), a critical prerequisite for any candidate adhesin, and is one of two putative porins identified in B. burgdorferi to date (27). Although p66 does not contain any previously identified integrin recognition motifs, we showed that in recombinant form, the protein binds specifically to β3-chain integrins and competes with B. burgdorferi for attachment to the same integrins (5). When expressed on the surface ofEscherichia coli, p66 increases attachment of the E. coli cells to a transfected human cell line that expresses αvβ3 but not to the parental cell line which expresses no β3-chain integrins (5). The central portion of p66, comprising amino acids 142 to 384 and denoted p66M, contains all of the information required for binding to β3-chain integrins (5).

To further understand the basis of β3-chain integrin binding by p66, which contains none of the known integrin recognition motifs, smaller fragments of p66 were tested for binding to αIIbβ3. We constructed a series of recombinant proteins in which fragments of the integrin-binding domain of p66 were fused to the E. coli maltose-binding protein (MBP), which facilitates the production and purification of soluble protein (Fig. 1). Fragments of the p66 gene were generated by PCR using the primers listed in Table1. After amplification, each fragment was digested with the appropriate restriction enzymes and cloned into pMalC2 (New England Biolabs, Beverly, Mass.) which had been digested with the same enzymes. After induction with isopropyl-β-d-thiogalactopyranoside, the recombinant fusion proteins were purified by amylose affinity chromatography as previously described (5). The MBP-p66 fusions tested were p66M (amino acids 142 to 384) and p66MC (amino acids 142 to 618), both of which were described previously (5), plus p66-142-260 (amino acids 142 to 260), p66-142-342, p66-254-402, p66-334-402, and p66-254-342 (Fig. 1).

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

The recombinant fusions of p66 to MBP used in this study, and the integrin αIIbβ3-binding activities of the fusion proteins. The full-length p66 as encoded byB. burgdorferi is shown at the top; the unfilled segment denotes the secretion signal, which is not present in the mature protein. MBP-p66M and MBP-p66MC were previously described (5). The other fusions are denoted by amino acid numbers corresponding to the B. burgdorferi strain B31 sequence (8). The oligonucleotides used for amplification ofB. burgdorferi sequences are listed in Table 1. For quantification of binding activity, purified αIIbβ3 (3 μg/ml) was immobilized in microtiter wells as previously described (5). All wells were blocked with 25 mM HEPES (pH 7.8)–150 mM NaCl–1 mM MgCl2–1 mM MnCl2–0.25 mM CaCl2–1% bovine serum albumin–0.1% dextrose (5) and then incubated in the same buffer alone (no additions) or with the addition of cRGD peptide G4120 (2) (15 μM) or EDTA (10 mM) for 30 min at ambient temperature. MBP fusion proteins were then added to 3 μg/ml (final concentration), and incubation continued for 3 h. Unbound protein was removed by washing; bound protein was quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using an anti-MBP rabbit antiserum (1:10,000; New England Biolabs) followed by anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated to alkaline phosphatase (1:10,000; Promega). Binding to uncoated wells was subtracted to give the integrin-specific signals displayed. In each case, the integrin-specific signal was at least three times the signal obtained with no αIIbβ3. Shown are the means + standard deviations of the four replicates performed in each experiment; similar results were observed in multiple experiments. OD405, optical density at 405 nm.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Synthetic oligonucleotides used for generation of recombinant p66 fragments

The MBP-p66 fusion proteins were each tested for the ability to bind to microtiter wells coated with purified αIIbβ3 (Fig. 1) as described previously (5). Binding was quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using a polyclonal anti-MBP rabbit serum (New England Biolabs) followed by an anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated to alkaline phosphatase (Promega, Madison, Wis.). Attachment of each protein to uncoated wells was subtracted to give the integrin-specific signals shown. To determine whether the observed binding was inhibitable by known integrin antagonists, EDTA and a cyclic RGD (cRGD) peptide (G4120 [2, 5]) were added to parallel wells. Both reagents inhibit attachment of recombinant p66 and of B. burgdorferito αIIbβ3 and αvβ3 (5, 7).

As demonstrated previously, p66M and p66MC both bound efficiently to αIIbβ3, and this attachment was significantly inhibited by both EDTA and cRGD (Fig. 1) (5). Similarly, the two largest fragments tested here, p66-142-342 and p66-254-402, which overlap by 88 amino acids, displayed αIIbβ3-binding activity that was inhibitable by the integrin antagonists (Fig. 1). These results initially suggested that the 88 amino acids common to these recombinant proteins might contain all of the information required for αIIbβ3 recognition. However, when this portion of p66 alone, i.e., p66-254-342, was tested for αIIbβ3 binding, no integrin-specific attachment was observed (Fig. 1). In contrast, p66-142-260 and p66-334-402, which do not overlap, both displayed αIIbβ3-binding activity, and attachment of p66-334-402 to αIIbβ3 was inhibited by EDTA and cRGD (Fig. 1). Attachment of p66-142-260 αIIbβ3 was not inhibited by the integrin antagonists at concentrations that inhibit B. burgdorferiattachment to the same receptor.

These results suggest that integrin recognition by p66 is complex and dependent on the conformation of the protein. This conclusion is based on the observation that two distinct regions of p66M appear to recognize αIIbβ3 in different ways. The region encompassed by amino acids 334 to 402 appears to contain information that allows binding to αIIbβ3in a manner that resembles binding by mammalian integrin ligands, because attachment of all MBP-p66 fusion proteins containing these amino acids is inhibited by EDTA and cRGD (Fig. 1, fusion proteins p66M, p66MC, p66-254-402, and p66-334-402). However, portions of p66 amino terminal to amino acids 334 to 402 also appear to recognize αIIbβ3. p66-142-260 binds efficiently to αIIbβ3 but is not inhibited by EDTA or cRGD, while p66-142-342 not only binds to αIIbβ3 but also is inhibited by the integrin antagonists. This cannot be explained simply by the presence of residues that determine specific integrin recognition within amino acids 254 to 342 in the latter fusion protein, because this region of p66 did not appear to have any αIIbβ3-binding activity on its own (Fig.1). It is also unlikely that the binding activity of p66-142-260 is simply due to nonspecific protein-protein interactions, since the buffer contains bovine serum albumin in excess. Rather, it is more likely that p66 residues 142 to 260 bind to a domain of αIIbβ3 that is not directly affected by EDTA or cRGD and that additional amino acids carboxy terminal to this portion of the protein contribute to recognition of domains of αIIbβ3 that are affected by the integrin antagonists. This hypothesis is supported by data presented below, which demonstrate that B. burgdorferi attachment to αIIbβ3 can be inhibited by synthetic peptides that correspond to specific portions of p66.

A second approach to the identification of p66 sequences that are important for integrin recognition was based on previous studies with RGD-containing peptides (reviewed in reference 16). If a peptide contains an integrin recognition sequence, we would expect that peptide to competitively inhibit the attachment of B. burgdorferi to the integrin. Therefore, a series of synthetic peptides corresponding to portions of the integrin-binding domain of p66 (p66M) derived from B. burgdorferi strain N40 was generated. Each p66-derived peptide contained a central aspartic acid (D) residue flanked by at least two additional amino acids on either side (Table 2). The approach of targeting D residues was taken because of the importance of this amino acid in the known integrin recognition motifs present in several ligands, including fibrinogen, fibronectin, and the invasin protein ofYersinia pseudotuberculosis, which binds several β1-chain integrins (16, 22). Peptide stocks diluted in the assay buffer were adjusted to bring the pH to that of the buffer with no added peptide, then diluted to the concentrations indicated, and incubated with αIIbβ3immobilized in microtiter wells (5-7). RadiolabeledB. burgdorferi strain N40 was then added and allowed to bind as described previously (6). Peptides GRGDSP and GRGESP, which are not derived from p66, were included as positive and negative controls, respectively, in all experiments.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Synthetic peptides tested for inhibition of B. burgdorferi attachment to integrin αIIbβ3

One of the p66-derived peptides, representing residues 203 to 209, inhibited B. burgdorferi attachment to αIIbβ3 with an activity comparable to that of a linear RGD peptide (Fig. 2). Similar inhibition profiles were observed with three independently synthesized batches of peptide 203-9, but a scrambled version of this peptide showed no inhibitory activity (Fig. 2, 203-9S). This result demonstrates that it is the sequence of amino acids, not the overall composition of peptide 203-9, that is important to the ability of this peptide to compete with B. burgdorferi for integrin attachment. We were unable to detect direct binding to αIIbβ3 by an MBP fusion to p66 residues 201 to 209 (the product of cloning and expressing annealed oligonucleotides oJLC58 and oJLC59 in pMalC2 [data not shown]), but it is possible that this small portion of p66 is not exposed to the solvent in the context of the 42-kDa MBP fusion partner or that the affinity of the peptide fused to MBP is too low to allow stable attachment.

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

Inhibition of B. burgdorferi attachment to αIIbβ3 by p66-derived synthetic peptides. Integrin αIIbβ3 was immobilized in microtiter wells at 1 μg/ml and then incubated with synthetic peptides at the concentrations shown for 30 min at ambient temperature.35S-labeled B. burgdorferi strain N40 was then added to the wells, and the plates were centrifuged, incubated at ambient temperature, and washed as described previously (6, 7). Bound bacteria were quantified by liquid scintillation counting. Data points represent the means ± standard deviations of four replicates and represent at least two independent experiments. Relative binding efficiency is defined as the level of attachment in the presence of each reagent divided by the level seen in the absence of any peptide. Peptide sequences are given in Table 2; peptides listed in Table 2 but not shown in this figure did not affectB. burgdorferi attachment to αIIbβ3. For the sake of clarity, error bars are shown only for GRGDSP, N203-9, N203-9S, and N185-91, but GRGDSP and N203-9 were always significantly different from all other peptides ( P < 0.05 ) by the two-tailed ttest.

Several additional experiments suggest that structural features of peptide 203-9 may be important for integrin recognition. Conservative substitution of E for either one of the two D residues in peptide 203-9 (denoted D205E and D207E) resulted in no significant inhibition ofB. burgdorferi binding to αIIbβ3(Table 2, Fig. 2, and data not shown). These results suggest that it is the specific amino acid side chain, rather than the overall charge, that determines integrin recognition by this peptide. In addition, a peptide from which the proline at the C terminus had been deleted (203-8) had no inhibitory activity (data not shown). With the terminal proline intact, the C-terminal linkage (carboxylate versus amide) made no difference (Table 2 and data not shown). Given these results, it is interesting that for RGD peptide inhibition of mammalian cells to fibronectin, GRGDSP was more potent than RGDS, GDSP, and GRGESP (26), although peptide inhibition profiles vary with the particular ligand-integrin pair.

Peptide 185-91 also inhibited B. burgdorferi attachment to αIIbβ3, but to a significantly lesser extent than did either 203-9 or GRGDSP (Fig. 2). None of the other p66-derived peptides tested inhibited B. burgdorferi binding to αIIbβ3 (Table 2, Fig. 2, and data not shown), leaving 203-9 and 185-91 as the only peptides that competed with B. burgdorferi N40 for integrin attachment. These results are intriguing because both of these peptides are encompassed within the p66-142-260 fusion protein, which binds to integrin αIIbβ3 but is not affected by the integrin antagonist EDTA or cRGD. The results obtained with the p66-142-260 fusion protein and with peptides 185-91 and 203-9 suggest that this portion of the protein is important for αIIbβ3 recognition by p66. It is possible that p66-142-260 binds with high affinity to αIIbβ3 and therefore cannot be inhibited by either EDTA or cRGD. It is also possible that p66-142-260 binds to a site on the integrin that, while not affected by EDTA or cRGD, is nevertheless involved in the formation of a stable attachment complex by B. burgdorferi.

The results of our studies with p66-derived peptides and recombinant protein fragments suggest that two noncontiguous portions of p66 each contain information required for recognition of integrin αIIbβ3 and that the overall conformation of the protein is likely to be important for αIIbβ3 binding by B. burgdorferi. It is not surprising that by implication, the tertiary structure of p66 would be critical for integrin recognition. Despite the ability of small peptides to inhibit binding to integrins, maintenance of the overall structure of the mature protein ligand has been shown to be critical for stable integrin attachment by other ligands, e.g., fibronectin and the Y. pseudotuberculosis invasin protein (3, 21). The identification of p66 residues required for integrin interaction will facilitate the generation of targeted mutants in B. burgdorferi that will allow rigorous testing of the role of this interaction in infection, with minimal disruption to the biology of the organism.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Mia Spugnardi, Wambui Chege, Hyacinthe Ntchobo, and Daniel Caffrey for their contributions to this work, Sarah Bodary for reagents and advice, and John Leong and Allen Steere for review of the manuscript.

This work was supported by a Biomedical Science Grant from the Arthritis Foundation and by PHS grant AI-40938 (to J.C.) and the Center for Gastroenterology Research on Absorptive and Secretory Processes at New England Medical Center, PHS grant 1 P30DK39428 awarded by NIDDK.

Notes

Editor: J. T. Barbieri

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 18 December 2000.
    • Returned for modification 2 February 2001.
    • Accepted 7 February 2001.
  • Copyright © 2001 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Backenson P. B.,
    2. Coleman J. L.,
    3. Benach J. L.
    Borrelia burgdorferi shows specificity of binding to glycosphingolipids.Infect. Immun.63199528112817
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Barker P.,
    2. Bullens S.,
    3. Bunting S.,
    4. Burdick D.,
    5. Chan K.,
    6. Deisher T.,
    7. Eigenbrot C.,
    8. Gadek T.,
    9. Gantzos R.,
    10. Lipari M.,
    11. Muir C.,
    12. Napier M.,
    13. Pitti R.,
    14. Padus A.,
    15. Quan C.,
    16. Stanley M.,
    17. Struble M.,
    18. Tom J.,
    19. Burnier J.
    Cyclic RGD peptide analogues as antiplatelet antithrombotics.J. Med. Chem.35199220402048
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bowditch R.,
    2. Halloran C.,
    3. Aota S.,
    4. Obara M.,
    5. Plow E.,
    6. Yamada K.,
    7. Ginsberg M.
    Integrin αIIbβ3 (platelet GPIIb-IIIa) recognizes multiple sites in fibronectin.J. Biol. Chem.26619912332323328
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Bunikis J.,
    2. Noppa L.,
    3. Bergstrom S.
    Molecular analysis of a 66-kDa protein associated with the outer membrane of Lyme disease Borrelia.FEMS Microbiol. Lett.1311995139145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Coburn J.,
    2. Chege W.,
    3. Magoun L.,
    4. Bodary S. C.,
    5. Leong J. M.
    Characterization of a candidate Borrelia burgdorferi β3-chain integrin ligand identified using a phage display library.Mol. Microbiol.341999926940
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Coburn J.,
    2. Leong J.,
    3. Erban J.
    Integrin αIIbβ3 mediates binding of the Lyme disease agent, Borrelia burgdorferi, to human platelets.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA90199370587063
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Coburn J.,
    2. Magoun L.,
    3. Bodary S. C.,
    4. Leong J. M.
    Integrins αvβ3 and α5β1 mediate attachment of Lyme disease spirochetes to human cells.Infect. Immun.66199819461952
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Fraser C. M.,
    2. Casjens S.,
    3. Huang W. M.,
    4. Sutton G. G.,
    5. Clayton R.,
    6. Lathigra R.,
    7. White O.,
    8. Ketchum K. A.,
    9. Dodson R.,
    10. Hickey E. K.,
    11. Gwinn M.,
    12. Dougherty B.,
    13. Tomb J. F.,
    14. Fleischmann R. D.,
    15. Richardson D.,
    16. Peterson J.,
    17. Kerlavage A. R.,
    18. Quackenbush J.,
    19. Salzberg S.,
    20. Hanson M.,
    21. van Vugt R.,
    22. Palmer N.,
    23. Adams M. D.,
    24. Gocayne J.,
    25. Venter J. C.,
    26. et al.
    Genomic sequence of a Lyme disease spirochaete, Borrelia burgdorferi.Nature3901997580586
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Galbe J. L.,
    2. Guy E.,
    3. Zapatero J. M.,
    4. Peerschke E. I.,
    5. Benach J. L.
    Vascular clearance of Borrelia burgdorferi in rats.Microb. Pathog.141993187201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Garcia-Monco J. C.,
    2. Fernandez-Villar B.,
    3. Benach J. L.
    Adherence of the Lyme disease spirochete to glial cells and cells of glial origin.J. Infect. Dis.1601989497506
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Grab D. J.,
    2. Givens C.,
    3. Kennedy R.
    Fibronectin-binding activity in Borrelia burgdorferi.Biochim. Biophys. Acta14071998135145
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Gross D. M.,
    2. Forsthuber T.,
    3. Tary-Lehmann M.,
    4. Etling C.,
    5. Ito K.,
    6. Nagy Z. A.,
    7. Field J. A.,
    8. Steere A. C.,
    9. Huber B. T.
    Identification of LFA-1 as a candidate autoantigen in treatment-resistant Lyme arthritis.Science2811998703706
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Guo B. P.,
    2. Brown E. L.,
    3. Dorward D. W.,
    4. Rosenberg L. C.,
    5. Hook M.
    Decorin-binding adhesins from Borrelia burgdorferi.Mol. Microbiol.301998711723
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Guo B. P.,
    2. Norris S. J.,
    3. Rosenberg L. C.,
    4. Hook M.
    Adherence of Borrelia burgdorferi to the proteoglycan decorin.Infect. Immun.63199534673472
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hechemy K. E.,
    2. Samsonoff W. A.,
    3. Harris H. L.,
    4. McKee M.
    Adherence and entry of Borrelia burgdorferi in Vero cells.J. Med. Microbiol.361992229238
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hynes R. O.
    Integrins: versatility, modulation, and signaling in cell adhesion.Cell6919921125
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Isaacs R.
    Borrelia burgdorferi bind to epithelial cell proteoglycan.J. Clin. Investig.931994809819
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Kalish R. A.,
    2. Leong J. M.,
    3. Steere A. C.
    Association of treatment-resistant chronic Lyme arthritis with HLA-DR4 and antibody reactivity to OspA and OspB of Borrelia burgdorferi.Infect. Immun.61199327742779
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Kopp P. A.,
    2. Schmitt M.,
    3. Wellensiek H. J.,
    4. Blobel H.
    Isolation and characterization of fibronectin-binding sites of Borrelia garinii N34.Infect. Immun.63199538043808
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kurtti T. J.,
    2. Munderloh U. G.,
    3. Ahlstrand G. G.,
    4. Johnson R. C.
    Borrelia burgdoferi in tick cell culture: growth and cellular adherence.J. Med. Entomol.251988256261
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Leong J. M.,
    2. Morrissey P. E.,
    3. Isberg R. R.
    A 76-amino acid disulfide loop in the Yersinia pseudotuberculosis invasin protein is required for integrin receptor recognition.J. Biol. Chem.26819932052420532
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Leong J. M.,
    2. Morrissey P. E.,
    3. Marra A.,
    4. Isberg R. R.
    An aspartate residue of the Yersinia pseudotuberculosis invasin protein that is critical for integrin binding.EMBO J.141995422431
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    1. Parveen N.,
    2. Leong J. M.
    Identification of a candidate glycosaminoglycan-binding adhesin of the Lyme disease spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi.Mol. Microbiol.35200012201234
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Probert W. S.,
    2. Allsup K. M.,
    3. LeFebvre R. B.
    Identification and characterization of a surface-exposed, 66-kilodalton protein from Borrelia burgdorferi.Infect. Immun.63199519331939
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Probert W. S.,
    2. Johnson B. J.
    Identification of a 47 kDa fibronectin-binding protein expressed by Borrelia burgdorferi isolate B31.Mol. Microbiol.30199810031015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Pytela R.,
    2. Pierschbacher M. D.,
    3. Argraves S.,
    4. Suzuki S.,
    5. Ruoslahti E.
    Arginine-glycine-aspartic acid adhesion receptors.Methods Enzymol.1441987475489
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Skare J. T.,
    2. Mirzabekov T. A.,
    3. Shang E. S.,
    4. Blanco D. R.,
    5. Erdjument-Bromage H.,
    6. Bunikis J.,
    7. Bergstrom S.,
    8. Tempst P.,
    9. Kagan B. L.,
    10. Miller J. N.,
    11. Lovett M. A.
    The Oms66 (p66) protein is a Borrelia burgdorferi porin.Infect. Immun.65199736543661
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Springer T. A.
    Adhesion receptors of the immune system.Nature3461990425434
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    1. Steere A. C.
    Lyme disease.N. Engl. J. Med.3211989586596
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    1. Szczepanski A.,
    2. Furie M. B.,
    3. Benach J. L.,
    4. Lane B. P.,
    5. Fleit H. B.
    Interaction between Borrelia burgdorferi and endothelium in vitro.J. Clin. Investig.85199016371647
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    1. Thomas D. D.,
    2. Comstock L. E.
    Interaction of Lyme disease spirochetes with cultured eucaryotic cells.Infect. Immun.57198913241326
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Delineation of Borrelia burgdorferi p66 Sequences Required for Integrin αIIbβ3 Recognition
Gillianne Defoe, Jenifer Coburn
Infection and Immunity May 2001, 69 (5) 3455-3459; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.5.3455-3459.2001

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 Infection and Immunity 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.
Delineation of Borrelia burgdorferi p66 Sequences Required for Integrin αIIbβ3 Recognition
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Infection and Immunity
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Infection and Immunity.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Delineation of Borrelia burgdorferi p66 Sequences Required for Integrin αIIbβ3 Recognition
Gillianne Defoe, Jenifer Coburn
Infection and Immunity May 2001, 69 (5) 3455-3459; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.5.3455-3459.2001
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Notes
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Bacterial Proteins
Borrelia burgdorferi Group
Platelet Glycoprotein GPIIb-IIIa Complex
Porins

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About IAI
  • 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 #IAIjournal

@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: 0019-9567; Online ISSN: 1098-5522