4.6 Article

Type I Interferon Induction during Influenza Virus Infection Increases Susceptibility to Secondary Streptococcus pneumoniae Infection by Negative Regulation of γδ T Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 86, 期 22, 页码 12304-12312

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01269-12

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 AI41111, U01 AI082970, HHSN266200500021C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of deaths following influenza virus infection result from secondary bacterial superinfection, most commonly caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Several models have been proposed to explain how primary respiratory viral infections exacerbate secondary bacterial disease, but the mechanistic explanations have been contradictory. In this study, mice were infected with S. pneumoniae at different days after primary influenza A (X31) virus infection. Our findings show that the induction of type I interferons (IFNs) during a primary nonlethal influenza virus infection is sufficient to promote a deadly S. pneumoniae secondary infection. Moreover, mice deficient in type I interferon receptor (IFNAR knockout [KO] mice) effectively cleared the secondary bacterial infection from their lungs, increased the recruitment of neutrophils, and demonstrated an enhanced innate expression of interleukin-17 (IL-17) relative to wild-type (WT) mice. Lung gamma delta T cells were responsible for almost all IL-17 production, and their function is compromised during secondary S. pneumoniae infection of WT but not IFNAR KO mice. Adoptive transfer of gamma delta T cells from IFNAR KO mice reduced the susceptibility to secondary S. pneumoniae infection in the lung of WT mice. Altogether, our study highlights the importance of type I interferon as a key master regulator that is exploited by opportunistic pathogens such as S. pneumoniae. Our findings may be utilized to design effective preventive and therapeutic strategies that may be beneficial for coinfected patients during influenza epidemics.

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

4.6
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