Role of Flesh-Eating Bacteria¿s Toxin Identified

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A toxin secreted by one of the nastiest flesh-eating bacteria around packs an uncommon one-two punch on unsuspecting host cells. Related to a snake venom toxin, an enzyme called phospholipase A2 allows the deadly M3 strain of Streptococcus to take residence more easily in the throat and produce a more severe disease, researchers report. "This toxin takes a pretty darn good pathogen and makes it a much better pathogen," says James Musser of the Methodist Hospital Research Institute in Houston, who led the research.

The mid-1980s saw the emergence of a severe new type of invasive, flesh-eating bacterial infection, sometimes called necrotizing fasciitis, which could rapidly kill a person or cost them a limb. These infections, which currently number several hundred per year in the U.S., are caused by one of several juiced up varieties of Group A Streptococcus, the same bacterium that causes millions of cases of strep throat and other minor infections annually. In 2002 Musser and his colleague sequenced the genome of one of the most pernicious of these flesh eaters, the Group A strain M3. They found that the strain had acquired the gene for phospholipase A2, called SlaA, in the mid-1980s, which suggested that SlaA was responsible for the jump in virulence. How the enzyme might have helped the bacterium thrive was unknown, though.

In a report published online October 16 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Musser's group details some of SlaA's advantages. The researchers compared the usual M3 strain, containing SlaA, with a mutant version lacking the enzyme. Whereas mice infected with the regular M3 died within a day, a quarter of animals infected with the mutant form survived. Similarly, monkeys exposed to the normal strain contained thousands of times more bacteria in their throats than those given the mutant version. The regular bacteria were also better able to stick to cultured human cells. Considering the wild strain's greater numbers and increased severity, "it's actually a two-for-one strategy that the organism gets with this toxin," Musser says. "It's quite a clever toxin in that regard."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Although the group didn't identify the toxin's target, it probably causes cells to die from within by overstimulating the immune system, says immunologist Harry Hill of the University of Utah. Similar to another phospholipase toxin, SlaA produces a fatty acid that contributes to inflammation. "I think a lot of the damage is caused by vastly enhancing and promoting this inflammatory response," says Hill.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe