4.7 Article

Plasma Levels of Bacterial DNA Correlate with Immune Activation and the Magnitude of Immune Restoration in Persons with Antiretroviral-Treated HIV Infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 199, 期 8, 页码 1177-1185

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/597476

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for AIDS Research at Case Western Reserve University [AI 36219]
  2. AIDS Clinical Trials Group [AI 25879, AI 38858]
  3. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [AI 076174]
  4. National Institutes of Health [AI055273, AI44595]
  5. Center for AIDS Prevention Studies [P30 MH62246]
  6. University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) [P30 AI27763, P30 MH59037]
  7. UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute [UL1 RR024131-01]
  8. University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The significance of elevated plasma levels of bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in persons with chronic HIV infection remains undefined. We measured LPS levels by use of limulus lysate assay, and DNA sequences encoding bacterial ribosomal 16S RNA (16S rDNA) were assessed by quantitative polymerase chain reactions in plasma samples obtained from 242 donors. Plasma levels of 16S rDNA were significantly higher in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects than in uninfected subjects, and they correlated with LPS levels. Higher levels of 16S rDNA were associated with higher levels of T cell activation and with lower levels of CD4 T cell restoration during antiretroviral therapy. Antiretroviral therapy reduces but does not fully normalize plasma levels of bacterial 16S rDNA, an index of microbial translocation from the gastrointestinal tract. High levels of 16SrDNA during therapy are strongly associated with reduced increases in the CD4(+) T lymphocyte count, irrespective of plasma HIV RNA levels. These findings are consistent with the importance of microbial translocation in immunodeficiency and T cell homeostasis in chronic HIV 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

4.7
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