Abstract

The insect immune response can be activated by the recognition of both non-self and molecular by-products of tissue damage. Since pathogens and tissue damage usually arise at the same time during infection, the specific mechanisms of the immune response to microorganisms, and to tissue damage have not been unraveled. Consequently, some aspects of damage caused by microorganisms in vector-borne arthropods have been neglected. We herein reassess the Anopheles–Plasmodium interaction, incorporating Matzinger’s danger/damage hypothesis and George Salt’s injury assumptions. The invasive forms of the parasite cross the peritrophic matrix and midgut epithelia to reach the basal lamina and differentiate into an oocyst. The sporozoites produced in the oocyst are released into the hemolymph, and from there enter the salivary gland. During parasite development, wounds to midgut tissue and the basement membrane are produced. We describe the response of the different compartments where the parasite interacts with the mosquito. In the midgut, the response includes the expression of antimicrobial peptides, production of reactive oxygen species, and possible activation of midgut regenerative cells. In the basal membrane, wound repair mainly involves the production of molecules and the recruitment of hemocytes. We discuss the susceptibility to damage in tissues, and how the place and degree of damage may influence the differential response and the expression of damage associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). Knowledge about damage caused by parasites may lead to a deeper understanding of the relevance of tissue damage and the immune response it generates, as well as the origins and progression of infection in this insect–parasite interaction.

Highlights

  • In the last 30 years research into insect immunity has blossomed, providing overwhelming evidence of the ecological costs of the immune response

  • Aside from pathogen recognition and elimination, the insect immune system must distinguish between, and respond differently to commensal and pathogenic microorganisms. This occurs via the sensing of danger/damage molecules (DAMPs), whether endogenous or exogenous

  • Moreno-García et al Danger and immune response in mosquitoes size.”. He mentioned that the defense is related to recognition of self or non-self, and to damage: “Since the cells of each kind of insect react to most infections, but not to all, those cells must be able to distinguish the organisms to which they react from others which they do not molest” and called attention to the fact that the . . . “defence reaction must lie principally in its effect on alien parasites, and on those that endanger the life of their host.”

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the last 30 years research into insect immunity has blossomed, providing overwhelming evidence of the ecological costs of the immune response. The insect immune response can be activated by the recognition of both non-self and molecular by-products of tissue damage.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call