4.5 Article

Differential Cytokine Gene Expression According to Outcome in a Hamster Model of Leptospirosis

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000582

关键词

-

资金

  1. Direction des Affaires Internationales de l'Institut Pasteur
  2. French Ministry of Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Parameters predicting the evolution of leptospirosis would be useful for clinicians, as well as to better understand severe leptospirosis, but are scarce and rarely validated. Because severe leptospirosis includes septic shock, similarities with predictors evidenced for sepsis and septic shock were studied in a hamster model. Methodology/Principal Findings: Using an LD50 model of leptospirosis in hamsters, we first determined that 3 days post-infection was a time-point that allowed studying the regulation of immune gene expression and represented the onset of the clinical signs of the disease. In the absence of tools to assess serum concentrations of immune effectors in hamsters, we determined mRNA levels of various immune genes, especially cytokines, together with leptospiraemia at this particular time-point. We found differential expression of both pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators, with significantly higher expression levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin 1 alpha, cyclo-oxygenase 2 and interleukin 10 genes in nonsurvivors compared to survivors. Higher leptospiraemia was also observed in nonsurvivors. Lastly, we demonstrated the relevance of these results by comparing their respective expression levels using a LD100 model or an isogenic high-passage nonvirulent variant. Conclusions/Significance: Up-regulated gene expression of both pro- and anti-inflammatory immune effectors in hamsters with fatal outcome in an LD50 model of leptospirosis, together with a higher Leptospira burden, suggest that these gene expression levels could be predictors of adverse outcome in leptospirosis.

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

4.5
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