4.7 Article

Evaluation of IL-35, as a Possible Biomarker for Follow-Up after Therapy, in Chronic Human Schistosoma Infection

Journal

VACCINES
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11050995

Keywords

Schistosoma haematobium; Schistosoma mansoni; IL-35

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The host response to helminth infections is characterized by systemic and tissue-related immune responses. Experimental studies have shown the importance of regulatory T and B cells with secreted cytokines in anti-schistosomiasis immunity. This study investigated the serum levels of five cytokines in samples from Schistosoma-infected patients before and after treatment, and found that IL-35 may serve as a potential serological biomarker for the evaluation of Schistosoma therapy follow-up.
The host response to helminth infections is characterized by systemic and tissue-related immune responses that play a crucial role in pathological diseases. Recently, experimental studies have highlighted the role of regulatory T (Tregs) and B (Bregs) cells with secreted cytokines as important markers in anti-schistosomiasis immunity. We investigated the serical levels of five cytokines (TNFa, IFN-?, IL-4, IL-10 and IL-35) in pre- and post-treatment samples from chronic Schistosoma infected patients to identify potential serological markers during follow-up therapy. Interestingly, we highlighted an increased serum level of IL-35 in the pre-therapy samples (median 439 pg/mL for Schistosoma haematobium and 100.5 pg/mL for Schistsoma mansoni infected patients) compared to a control group (median 62 pg/mL and 58 pg/mL, respectively, p = 0.05), and a significantly lower concentration in post-therapy samples (181 pg/mL for S. haematobium and 49.5 pg/mL for S. mansoni infected patients, p = 0.05). The present study suggests the possible role of IL-35 as a novel serological biomarker in the evaluation of Schistosoma therapy follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available