4.7 Article

Polymorphisms at the innate immune receptor TLR2 are associated with Borrelia infection in a wild rodent population

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.0364

关键词

wildlife disease; host-parasite interactions; Borrelia; innate immune defence; Toll-like receptors; disease resistance

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [621-2206-2876, 621-2006-4551]
  2. Crafoord Foundation [20060662]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation [PA0033_121466, PP00P3_128386]
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PA0033_121466] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The discovery of the key role of Toll-like receptors (TLRs) in initiating innate immune responses and modulating adaptive immunity has revolutionized our understanding of vertebrate defence against pathogens. Yet, despite their central role in pathogen recognition and defence initiation, there is little information on how variation in TLRs influences disease susceptibility in natural populations. Here, we assessed the extent of naturally occurring polymorphisms at TLR2 in wild bank voles (Myodes glareolus) and tested for associations between TLR2 variants and infection with Borrelia afzelii, a common tick-transmitted pathogen in rodents and one of the causative agents of human Lyme disease. Bank voles in our population had 15 different TLR2 haplotypes (10 different haplotypes at the amino acid level), which grouped in three well-separated clusters. In a large-scale capture-mark-recapture study, we show that voles carrying TLR2 haplotypes of one particular cluster (TLR2(c2)) were almost three times less likely to be Borrelia infected than animals carrying other haplotypes. Moreover, neutrality tests suggested that TLR2 has been under positive selection. This is, to our knowledge, the first demonstration of an association between TLR polymorphism and parasitism in wildlife, and a striking example that genetic variation at innate immune receptors can have a large impact on host resistance.

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

4.7
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