|
|
||||||||
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
Microbiology and Tumorbiology Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Recently The JI published an interesting article by Shenker et al. (1) concerning the A. actinomycetemcomitans cytolethal distending toxin. However, we are concerned that readers not familiar with this family of bacterial toxins might be misled.
Our major criticism concerns two sentences on p. 417: "At this point it is premature to speculate as to whether the toxin simply acts at the cell surface to trigger a signal transduction cascade or enters the cell and interacts with specific subcellular targets. Clearly, further investigation is required to identify the cellular target(s) and molecular events by which Cdts induce cell cycle arrest."
We would like to draw attention to the following facts. The B subunit of CDT (CdtB) has DNase activity (2, 3), and all cytotoxic effects are abolished when residues responsible for the DNase activity are mutated. CDT induces DNA double strand breaks in target cells. This was shown in yeast cells transfected with the CdtB gene (4) and in mammalian cells naturally intoxicated by extracellular treatment with the toxin (5). Thus, the subcellular target of CDT is already known to be DNA.
Microinjection of CdtB is sufficient to induce intoxication (3, 6), implying that the toxin acts from inside the cell. Moreover, all cellular effects are blocked if the toxin is prevented from being endocytosed (7). Thus, the putative transmembrane signaling by cell surface-bound CDT has already been rejected.
With this letter we want to give The JI readers a broader vision of the CDT field as it is known in early 2004. We agree with Shenker et al. that there are still several unanswered questions, but the current knowledge is not as limited as they report.
References
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |