Through its life cycle from the insect vector to mammalian hosts Trypanosoma cruzi has developed clever strategies to reach the intracellular milieu where it grows sheltered from the hosts' immune system. We have been interested in several aspects of in vitro interactions of different infective forms of the parasite with cultured mammalian cells. We have observed that not only the classically infective trypomastigotes but also amastigotes, originated from the extracellular differentiation of trypomastigotes, can infect cultured cells. Interestingly, the process of invasion of different parasite infective forms is remarkably distinct and also highly dependent on the host cell type.

Previous work has shown that Trypanosoma cruzi extracellular amastigotes as well as metacyclic trypomastigotes infect cultured cells in a highly specific parasite form-cell type interaction. In this work we have investigated the mode of interaction of both forms with HeLa and Vero cells using scanning electron and confocal fluorescence microscopy. We examined the distribution of several host cell components as well as extracellular matrix elements during cell invasion by both T. cruzi infective forms. Scanning electron microscopy showed that membrane expansions formed during the invasion of cells by extracellular amastigotes. These expansions correspond to small cup-like structures in HeLa cells and are comparatively larger “crater”-like in Vero cells. We detected by confocal microscopy actin-rich structures associated with the internalisation of both infective forms of the parasite that correspond to the membrane expansions. Confocal fluorescence microscopy combining DIC images of cells labelled with monoclonal antibodies to phosphotyrosine, cytoskeletal elements, integrins, and extracellular matrix components revealed that some of the components like gelsolin and a-actinin accumulate in actin-rich structures formed in the invasion of amastigotes of both cell types. Others, like vinculin and α2 integrin may be present in these structures without evident accumulation. And finally, some actin-rich processes may be devoid of components like fibronectin or αV integrin. These studies provide evidence that the repertoire of host cell/extracellular matrix components that engage in the invasion process of T. cruzi forms is cell type- and parasite form-dependent.

Procópio, D. O., da Silva, S., Cunningham, C. C., and Mortara, R. A. 1998.Trypanosoma cruzi: Effect of protein kinase inhibitors and cytoskeletal protein organization and expression on host cell invasion by amastigotes and metacyclic trypomastigotes.Experimental Parasitology90, 1–13. Although trypomastigotes are regarded as the classic infective forms ofT. cruzi, amastigotes generated extracellularly or released from infected cells during lysis may circulate and infect other cells. We have compared the infectivity of metacyclic trypomastigotes and extracellular amastigotes toward HeLa and Vero cells and observed that amastigotes were capable of invading both HeLa and Vero cells to a much higher degree than the corresponding metacyclic forms. Second, cell microfilament or microtubule disruption inhibited amastigote but not trypomastigote entry. Third, cells with altered expression in cytoskeletal components (ABP or gelsolin) internalize amastigotes and trypomastigotes with highly contrasting fashion. Fourth, protein kinase inhibitors such as genistein and staurosporine affect the internalization of amastigotes and trypomastigotes in a host-cell-dependent manner. Our results suggest that extracellular amastigotes and metacyclic trypomastigotes utilize mechanisms to invade host cells with particular features for eachT. cruziform and for each host cell. When internalized, both forms associate to lysosomes of HeLa cells.

ABSTRACT. Upon incubation at 37° C onto glass coverslips coated with Concanavalin A, poly‐L‐lysine, or a monoclonal antibody (1D9) directed to the parasite major surface glycoprotein Ssp‐4, extracellular Trypanosoma cruzi amastigotes release trails of material barely visible by light microscopy. This release is not associated with parasite movements. Immunolabeling studies confirmed that the material is derived from the parasite's membrane since thin section through samples labeled with 1D9 revealed that the trails are membrane‐bound structures. Scanning electron microscopy showed that the ∼0.1‐μm thick trails of material emerging from the amastigotes can be uniform or beaded, indicating a tendency to vesiculation. The trails are preferentially released from the flagellar pocket region and/or at the opposite posterior end of the parasite body, and seem to be devoid of microtubules. The release is time and temperature‐dependent and fixed parasites do not form trails. All attempts to inhibit trail release using drugs (antimycin A, sodium azide, cytochalasin D, nocodazole, genistein, staurosporine, EGTA) failed. The observation of trails associated with intracellular parasites and amastigotes invading Vero cells suggests that this is probably a physiological process.