4.6 Article

Genetically-Defined Deficiency of Mannose-Binding Lectin Is Associated with Protection after Experimental Stroke in Mice and Outcome in Human Stroke

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008433

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [FP7/2007-2013]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [SAF200804515- CO2-01]
  3. Fundacio n Melchor Colet
  4. Spanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases [RD06/0008/1013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The complement system is a major effector of innate immunity that has been involved in stroke brain damage. Complement activation occurs through the classical, alternative and lectin pathways. The latter is initiated by mannosebinding lectin (MBL) and MBL-associated serine proteases (MASPs). Here we investigated whether the lectin pathway contributes to stroke outcome in mice and humans. Methodology/Principal Findings: Focal cerebral ischemia/reperfusion in MBL-null mice induced smaller infarctions, better functional outcome, and diminished C3 deposition and neutrophil infiltration than in wild-type mice. Accordingly, reconstitution of MBL-null mice with recombinant human MBL (rhMBL) enhanced brain damage. In order to investigate the clinical relevance of these experimental observations, a study of MBL2 and MASP-2 gene polymorphism rendering the lectin pathway dysfunctional was performed in 135 stroke patients. In logistic regression adjusted for age, gender and initial stroke severity, unfavourable outcome at 3 months was associated with MBL-sufficient genotype (OR 10.85, p = 0.008) and circulating MBL levels (OR 1.29, p = 0.04). Individuals carrying MBL-low genotypes (17.8%) had lower C3, C4, and CRP levels, and the proinflammatory cytokine profile was attenuated versus MBL-sufficient genotypes. Conclusions/Significance: In conclusion, genetically defined MBL-deficiency is associated with a better outcome after acute stroke in mice and humans.

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