4.7 Article

Expression of Innate and Adaptive Immune Mediators in Human Corneal Tissue Infected With Aspergillus or Fusarium

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 204, 期 6, 页码 942-950

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir426

关键词

-

资金

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research
  2. Alcon Research Institute
  3. National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health [RO1 EY018612, P30 EY011373, F31 EY019841]
  4. Research to Prevent Blindness Foundation
  5. Ohio Lions Eye Research Foundation
  6. Alcon Laboratories

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Filamentous fungi of the genera Aspergillus and Fusarium are major causes of corneal ulcers in the United States and in the developing world and result in significant visual impairment and blindness. Methods. RNA was extracted from 110 patients with corneal ulcers in southern India within 1 week of infection with either Fusarium solani or Aspergillus flavus, and gene expression was determined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Posttransplant corneas from later stage disease (. 2 weeks after infection) were also examined. Results. Expression of Dectin-1, Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2), TLR4, TLR9, and NOD-like receptor protein (NLRP) 3 messenger RNA was elevated >1000-fold compared with uninfected donor corneas, whereas Dectin-2 was constitutively expressed in uninfected corneas. Furthermore, interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) expression was elevated >1000-fold, whereas IL-1 alpha expression was not increased. Expression of IL-8, IL-17, and tumor necrosis factor alpha was also elevated. CD3(+) and CD4(+) T cells were detected in infected posttransplant corneas. Expression of IL-17 and interferon c was elevated but not that of IL-4. There were no significant differences in the host response between Aspergillus-and Fusarium-infected corneas at any time point. Conclusions. There is a common innate and adaptive immune response to these filamentous fungi, which includes the generation of T-helper 1 and T-helper 17 cells.

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