4.6 Article

Nasopharyngeal Bacterial Colonization and Gene Polymorphisms of Mannose-Binding Lectin and Toll-Like Receptors 2 and 4 in Infants

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026198

关键词

-

资金

  1. Academy of Finland
  2. Special Governmental Fund for University Hospitals (EVO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Human nasopharynx is often colonized by potentially pathogenic bacteria. Gene polymorphisms in mannose-binding lectin (MBL), toll-like receptor (TLR) 2 and TLR4 have been reported. The present study aimed to investigate possible association between nasopharyngeal bacterial colonization and gene polymorphisms of MBL, TLR2 and TLR4 in healthy infants. Methodology/Principal Findings: From August 2008 to June 2010, 489 nasopharyngeal swabs and 412 blood samples were taken from 3-month-old healthy Finnish infants. Semi-quantitative culture was performed and pyrosequencing was used for detection of polymorphisms in MBL structural gene at codons 52, 54, and 57, TLR2 Arg753Gln and TLR4 Asp299Gly. Fifty-nine percent of subjects were culture positive for at least one of the four species: 11% for Streptococcus pneumoniae, 23% for Moraxella catarrhalis, 1% for Haemophilus influenzae and 25% for Staphylococcus aureus. Thirty-two percent of subjects had variant types in MBL, 5% had polymorphism of TLR2, and 18% had polymorphism of TLR4. Colonization rates of S. pneumoniae and S. aureus were significantly higher in infants with variant types of MBL than those with wild type (p = .011 and p = .024). Colonization rates of S. aureus and M. catarrhalis were significantly higher in infants with polymorphisms of TLR2 and of TLR4 than those without (p = .027 and p = .002). Conclusions: Our study suggests that there is an association between nasopharyngeal bacterial colonization and genetic variation of MBL, TLR2 and TLR4 in young infants. This finding supports a role for these genetic variations in susceptibility of children to respiratory infections.

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