4.6 Article

The Breadth, but Not the Magnitude, of Circulating Memory B Cell Responses to P. falciparum Increases with Age/Exposure in an Area of Low Transmission

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025582

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (UK), The Gambia
  2. Wellcome Trust [079920]
  3. Royal Society (UK)
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U190081993, MC_U190097907, MC_U190081986] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MC_U190097907, MC_U190081986, MC_U190081993] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum remains a major cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa. Immunity against symptoms of malaria requires repeated exposure, suggesting either that the parasite is poorly immunogenic or that the development of effective immune responses to malaria may be impaired. Methods: We carried out two age-stratified cross-sectional surveys of anti-malarial humoral immune responses in a Gambian village where P. falciparum malaria transmission is low and sporadic. Circulating antibodies and memory B cells (MBC) to four malarial antigens were measured using ELISA and cultured B cell ELISpot. Findings and Conclusions: The proportion of individuals with malaria-specific MBC and antibodies, and the average number of antigens recognised by each individual, increased with age but the magnitude of these responses did not. Malaria-specific antibody levels did not correlate with either the prevalence or median number of MBC, indicating that these two assays are measuring different aspects of the humoral immune response. Among those with immunological evidence of malaria exposure (defined as a positive response to at least one malarial antigen either by ELISA or ELISPOT), the median number of malaria-specific MBC was similar to median numbers of diphtheria-specific MBC, suggesting that the circulating memory cell pool for malaria antigens is of similar size to that for other antigens.

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