4.2 Article

TLR3 and RIG-I gene variants: Associations with functional effects on receptor expression and responses to measles virus and vaccine in vaccinated infants

期刊

HUMAN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 73, 期 6, 页码 677-685

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2012.03.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measles virus causes severe morbidity and mortality, despite the availability of measles vaccines. Successful defence against viral pathogens requires early recognition of virus-specific patterns by innate receptors like Toll-like receptor (TLR)3 and the RNA helicase, retinoic acid inducible gene-I (RIG-I). Genetic differences in these receptors may influence the primary immune responses to measles and the efficacy of measles vaccine. In 1-year-old Australian infants after their first measles vaccine dose, we investigated functional effects of TLR3 and RIG-I polymorphisms on intracellular protein expression using flow cytometry, cytokine responses to receptor ligands and measles lysate, and post-vaccination measles IgG levels. We found that TLR3 Leu412Phe was significantly associated with IFN-alpha/beta response after stimulation with TLR3 ligand, poly(I:C) (P=0.024). Downregulation of TLR3 protein expression in NK cells after poly(I:C) was also associated with this variant (P=0.011). In contrast, measles-specific expression, cytokine responses and antibody responses were not associated with TLR3 polymorphisms. No associations were found with RIG-I variants. These results suggest that a TLR3 polymorphism has functional effects on receptor expression and cytokine response. However, this did not translate to an effect on specific responses to measles virus or vaccine. We found no evidence that RIG-I polymorphisms were involved in measles immune responses. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据