4.4 Article

Cryptococcus gattii Infection Dampens Th1 and Th17 Responses by Attenuating Dendritic Cell Function and Pulmonary Chemokine Expression in the Immunocompetent Hosts

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 82, 期 9, 页码 3880-3890

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.01773-14

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Development Agency (Discovery Based Development [DD] grant)
  2. Thammasat University, Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cryptococcal infections are primarily caused by two related fungal species: Cryptococcus neoformans and Cryptococcus gattii. It is well known that C. neoformans generally affects immunocompromised hosts; however, C. gattii infection can cause diseases in not only immunocompromised hosts but also immunocompetent individuals. While recent studies suggest that C. gattii infection could dampen pulmonary neutrophil recruitment and inflammatory cytokine production in immunocompetent hosts, the impact of C. gattii infection on the development of their adaptive T helper cell immune response has not been addressed. Here, we report that C. neoformans infection with highly virulent and less virulent strains preferentially induced pulmonary Th1 and Th17 immune responses in the host, respectively. However, fewer pulmonary Th1 and Th17 cells could be detected in mice infected with C. gattii strains. Notably, dendritic cells (DC) in mice infected with C. gattii expressed much lower levels of surface MHC-II and Il12 or Il23 transcripts and failed to induce effective Th1 and Th17 differentiation in vitro. Furthermore, the expression levels of Ip10 and Cxcl9 transcripts, encoding Th1-attracting chemokines, were significantly reduced in the lungs of mice infected with the highly virulent C. gattii strain. Thus, our data suggest that C. gattii infection dampens the DC-mediated effective Th1/Th17 immune responses and downregulates the pulmonary chemokine expression, thus resulting in the inability to mount protective immunity in immunocompetent hosts.

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

4.4
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