4.7 Article

Association of mycobacterial antigen-specific CD4+ memory T cell subsets with outcome of pulmonary tuberculosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 60, 期 2, 页码 133-139

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2009.10.048

关键词

Memory T cells; Pulmonary tuberculosis; Flow cytometry

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, China [2008ZX10003-012]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation, China [7092100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Memory T cells are hallmark of acquired immunological responses. The relationship of mycobacterial antigen-specific CD4(+) memory T cell subsets with pulmonary tuberculosis was investigated. Methods: The mycobacterial antigen-specific CD4(+) T cells were detected based on CD154 expression and phenotypes of memory T cell were analyzed by surface staining of CD45RA and CCR7 and flow cytometrical analysis in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis and in tuberculin-positive healthy controls. The association of antigen-specific CD4(+) memory T cell subsets with disease severity and anti-TB treatment was analyzed in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Results: Patients with pulmonary tuberculosis had significantly lower frequencies of antigen-specific central memory T cells (T-CM) (p = 0.019) and higher frequencies of effector memory T cells (T-EM) (p = 0.022) compared with tuberculin-positive healthy controls without tuberculosis. Patients with smear/culture positive results showed lower population frequencies of T-CM and significantly higher frequencies of T-EM (p = 0.015) than those with smear/culture negative results. Treatment of TB patients with standard antibiotic regimens for more than one month led to significantly increased frequencies of T-CM (p = 0.031). Conclusions: The frequencies of mycobacterial antigen-specific T-CM and T-EM are associated with disease severity of pulmonary tuberculosis and T-CM are associated with short-term effects of anti-TB chemotherapy. (C) 2009 The British Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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