4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Disruption of Tight Junctions by Cellulose Sulfate Facilitates HIV Infection: Model of Microbicide Safety

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 200, 期 4, 页码 599-608

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/600867

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1RR025750, UL1 RR025750-02S1, UL1 RR025750] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI065309-03, R01 AI065309, AI065309, R21 AI079763, R33 AI079763, AI079763, R21 AI079763-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The lack of biomarkers that are predictive of safety is a critical gap in the development of microbicides. The present experiments were designed to evaluate the predictive value of in vitro models of microbicide safety. Methods. Changes in the epithelial barrier were evaluated by measuring transepithelial electrical resistance (TER) after exposure of human epithelial cells to candidate microbicides in a dual-chamber system. The significance of observed changes was addressed by challenging cultures with human immuodeficiency virus (HIV) and measuring the ability of virus to cross the epithelium and infect target T cells cultured in the lower chamber. Results. Exposure to nonoxynol-9 (N-9) or cellulose sulfate (CS), but not 9-[2-(phosphonomethoxy)propyl]adenine (also referred to as tenofovir) or PRO2000, resulted in a rapid and sustained reduction in TER and a marked increase in HIV infection of T cells cultured in the lower chamber. Moreover, CS triggered nuclear factor kappa B activation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and increased HIV replication in chronically infected U1 cells. Conclusions. Epithelial barrier disruption and enhanced viral replication may have contributed to the increased risk of HIV acquisition observed in phase 3 trials of N-9 and CS. Expansion of in vitro safety testing to include these models would provide a more stringent preclinical assessment of microbicide safety and may prove to be more predictive of clinical outcomes.

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