4.6 Article

Modulation of nasopharyngeal innate defenses by viral coinfection predisposes individuals to experimental pneumococcal carriage

期刊

MUCOSAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 56-67

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/mi.2015.35

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Local Comprehensive Research Network
  3. Medical Research Council/Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/M011569/1, MR/K01188X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MR/K01188X/1, MR/M011569/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased nasopharyngeal colonization density has been associated with pneumonia. We used experimental human pneumococcal carriage to investigate whether upper respiratory tract viral infection predisposes individuals to carriage. A total of 101 healthy subjects were screened for respiratory virus before pneumococcal intranasal challenge. Virus was associated with increased odds of colonization (75% virus positive became colonized vs. 46% virus-negative subjects; P = 0.02). Nasal Factor H (FH) levels were increased in virus-positive subjects and were associated with increased colonization density. Using an in vitro epithelial model we explored the impact of increased mucosal FH in the context of coinfection. Epithelial inflammation and FH binding resulted in increased pneumococcal adherence to the epithelium. Binding was partially blocked by antibodies targeting the FH-binding protein Pneumococcal surface protein C (PspC). PspC epitope mapping revealed individuals lacked antibodies against the FH binding region. We propose that FH binding to PspC in vivo masks this binding site, enabling FH to facilitate pneumococcal/epithelial attachment during viral infection despite the presence of anti-PspC antibodies. We propose that a PspC-based vaccine lacking binding to FH could reduce pneumococcal colonization, and may have enhanced protection in those with underlying viral infection.

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

4.6
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