4.4 Article

Toll-Like Receptor 4 Asp299Gly Polymorphism in Respiratory Syncytial Virus Epidemics

期刊

PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY
卷 45, 期 7, 页码 687-692

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.21248

关键词

respiratory syncytial virus; bronchiolitis in infants; innate immunity

资金

  1. Foundation for Pediatric Research in Finland
  2. Academy of Finland
  3. Biocenter Oulu

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) antigen serves as ligand for Toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 that is a transmembrane signaling receptor in macrophages and dendritic cells. According to current evidence single nucleotide polymorphism involving amino acid 299 influences the susceptibility to severe RSV infections. The Asp299Gly allele has been shown to influence the TLR4-mediated signaling causing conformational change in the extracellular domain that recognizes pathogen-associated molecular patterns. The aim was to study the association between the TLR4 Asp299Gly polymorphism and the susceptibility to severe RSV bronchiolitis in infants. Altogether 312 cases and 356 controls, selected on the basis place of residence, date of birth, gender, and gestation at birth, were studied. When adjusted for multiple dependent variables, no allele or genotype frequency difference was found between the cases and the controls. Post hoc analysis revealed that during the year 2000 epidemics, the Gly299Gly genotype associated with protection against severe RSV and during 2004 epidemics Gly299Gly genotype and 299Gly allele associated with severe RSV. To conclude, we could not confirm the association of the Gly299 allele with severe RSV. This is consistent with the evidence that the susceptibility to severe RSV infection is principally dependent on environmental and constitutional factors. We propose that the risk of severe RSV infection may additionally depend on the interaction between individual TLR4 genotype and the particular RSV group causing bronchiolitis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2010; 45:687-692. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.4
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