“…This intriguing difference between strains may possibly be due to the recognition of and binding to different receptor molecules on host cell surfaces that, for serovar E, may be enriched or clustered in some regions or microdomains of polarized epithelial cell apical membranes, such as lipid rafts or caveolae, proposed to be involved in serovar E but not in serovar L2 entry [19,20]. Although their role in chlamydial entry is still controversial [21][22][23], it is an interesting possibility, as many pathogens are known to interact with these membrane microdomains and that receptor molecules, such as membrane-associated estrogen receptors that locate to caveolae, have been implicated in serovar E attachment/entry [11,24]. In contrast, initial interactions of serovar L2 EB with host cell surfaces may occur via recognition of a broader range of host molecules or molecules widely represented throughout cell surfaces, such as heparan sulfate proteoglycans [25], and/or via Tarp-mediated pedestallike formation [26,27], a phenomenon shown to be more prevalent for serovar L2 than with serovar D [26] or serovar E [28].…”