4.7 Article

Mycobacterium bovis BCG killed by extended freeze-drying reduces airway hyperresponsiveness in 2 animal models

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 121, 期 2, 页码 471-478

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.09.033

关键词

BCG killed by extended freeze-drying treatment; allergic asthma; mice; guinea pigs; killed BCG; airway hyperresponsiveness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Live BCG administered intranasally to mice inhibits the development of ovalbumin (OVA)-induced eosinophilia and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR). It is unacceptable to treat human subjects intranasally with live BCG. Objective: We investigated whether BCG killed by extended freeze-drying (EFD) and subcutaneously injected has a protective effect in murine and guinea pig models of allergic airway inflammation. Methods: Mice were OVA sensitized (days 0 and 7), treated subcutaneously (day 14) with EFD and live or heat-killed BCG, and then OVA challenged (day 42). OVA-sensitized mice (days 0 and 7) were challenged (day 14) and EFD treated (day 18) before OVA rechallenge (day 46) to demonstrate the capacity of EFD to reverse the established lung inflammation. Guinea pigs were OVA sensitized (days 0 and 14), treated intradermally (day 35) with EFD, and OVA challenged (days 90-105). Results: In mice and guinea pigs EFD treatment reduced AHR. Among 3 BCG preparations, only EFD efficiently reduced AHR, eosinophilia, and the recruitment of dendritic cells to the lungs after OVA challenge. The protective effect of EFD is associated with production of the immunoregulatory cytokine IL-10. Moreover, EFD treatment did not induce toxic effects or delayed-type hypersensitivity to mycobacterial antigens; that is, it did not interfere with the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Conclusion: EFD administered subcutaneously inhibits the development of allergic airway inflammation and prevents AHR without inducing delayed-type hypersensitivity and side effects associated with live or heat-killed BCG.

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

4.7
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