Skip to content
PaperFren

Do ‘single-cell’ Mtb preps change macrophage results?

Open paper intelligence

Gentle sonication made Mtb hyperinflammatory (TLR2-high IL-1β/TNF) yet still replicative in macrophages, while filtering blunted inflammation and attenuated intracellular survival — so prep method can rewrite host–pathogen readouts.

Source

Single cell preparations of <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> damage the mycobacterial envelope and disrupt macrophage interactions

Mittal E, Roth AT, Seth A, et al. · eLife · 2023

doi.org/10.7554/elife.85416Read the full paper ↗28 citationscc by

Study at a glance

Design
Animal / in-vitro — In-vitro Mtb single-cell prep (sonication vs 5 μm filter vs spin) infecting mouse BMDMs; RNA-seq, cytokines, CFU, TEM; literature survey of 119 papers
N
N=5 · RNA-seq n=5 BMDM infections per condition (so/sp vs 5μmF, MOI 5, 72 h); plus TEM/CFU and 119-paper methods survey
Population
Mycobacterium tuberculosis (H37Rv and others) and mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages, including Tlr2−/−
Outcome
Envelope integrity, macrophage inflammatory gene expression/cytokines, and intracellular Mtb survival

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

What they did

Compared routine disaggregation (sonication, 5 μm filtering, spinning) for envelope damage (TEM), infected mouse BMDMs (RNA-seq n=5, cytokines, CFU), tested Tlr2−/− BMDMs, and surveyed how 119 papers reported single-cell methods.

What they found

Both sonication and filtering damaged the envelope. Sonicated bacilli drove higher TLR2-dependent transcription and IL-1β/TNF-α but replicated normally; filtered Mtb were hypo-inflammatory and attenuated. PDIM’s apparent anti-inflammatory effect depended on prep method. Only 39.5% of 119 papers reported how they made single-cell suspensions.

The limits

What it doesn't show

This is mouse BMDM work in vitro, not a clinical TB trial; other labs’ strains, detergents, or human macrophages may differ, and no single ‘correct’ prep is proven for all questions.

Key terms

Single-cell preparation
Disaggregating clumpy Mtb (sonication, filtering, syringing, spins) before macrophage infection.
PDIM
Phthiocerol dimycocerosate, a cell-envelope lipid thought to dampen macrophage inflammation — here prep-dependent.
TLR2
Host receptor driving much of the hyperinflammatory transcriptional response to sonicated Mtb.
BMDM
Mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages used as the infection model.
MOI
Multiplicity of infection; RNA-seq used MOI 5.

Flashcards

1 / 8

Research intelligence for this paper

See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.

Open paper intelligence

Quiz yourself

1 / 5

Sonicated Mtb were:

Common questions

What did sonication do?

Damaged the envelope and made bacilli hyperinflammatory (TLR2, IL-1β, TNF-α) without blocking replication.

What did filtering do?

Little inflammatory response and attenuated intracellular survival.

How often do papers report the method?

Only 39.5% of 119 surveyed papers.

Does PDIM always dampen inflammation?

Its impact depended on how Mtb was prepared.

More on Host–pathogen