4.6 Article

Promotion of a Functional B Cell Germinal Center Response after Leishmania Species Co-Infection Is Associated with Lesion Resolution

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 180, Issue 5, Pages 2009-2017

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.01.012

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [K08 AI076616]
  2. Fort Dodge Animal Health Fellowship in Veterinary Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Co-infection of C3HeB/FeJ (C3H) mice with both Leishmania major and Leishmania amazonensis leads to a healed footpad lesion, whereas co-infection of C57BL/6 (B6) mice leads to non-healing lesions. This inability to heal corresponds to a deficiency in B cell stimulation of the macrophage-mediated killing of L amazonensis in vitro and a less robust antibody response. The mechanism that leads to healing of these lesions is not completely known, although our studies implicate the B cell response as having an important effector function in killing L amazonensis. To understand more completely this disparate clinical outcome to the same infection, we analyzed the draining lymph node germinal center B cell response between co-infected C3H and B6 mice. There were more germinal center B cells, more antibody isotype-switched germinal center B cells, more memory B cells, and more antigen-specific antibody-producing cells in co-infected C3H mice compared to B6 mice as early as 2 weeks postinfection. Interleukin (IL)-21 production and IL-21 receptor expression in both mouse strains, however, were similar at 2 weeks, suggesting that the difference in the anti-Leishmania response in these mouse strains may be due to differences in T follicular cell commitment or intrinsic B cell differences. These data support the idea that functional B cells are important for healing L amazonensis in this infectious disease model. (Am J Pathol 2012, 180: 2009-2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.01.012)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available