4.5 Article

Cross-Reactivity of Antibodies against Leptospiral Recurrent Uveitis-Associated Proteins A and B (LruA and LruB) with Eye Proteins

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 4, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000778

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI-78111]
  2. Keeneland Foundation endowment
  3. Paul Mellon Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infection by Leptospira interrogans has been causally associated with human and equine uveitis. Studies in our laboratories have demonstrated that leptospiral lipoprotein LruA and LruB are expressed in the eyes of uveitic horses, and that antibodies directed against LruA and LruB react with equine lenticular and retinal extracts, respectively. These reactivities were investigated further by performing immunofluorescent assays on lenticular and retinal tissue sections. Incubation of lens tissue sections with LruA-antiserum and retinal sections with LruB-antiserum resulted in positive fluorescence. By employing two-dimensional gel analyses followed by immunoblotting and mass spectrometry, lens proteins cross-reacting with LruA antiserum were identified to be alpha-crystallin B and vimentin. Similarly, mass spectrometric analyses identified beta-crystallin B2 as the retinal protein cross-reacting with LruB-antiserum. Purified recombinant human alpha-crystallin B and vimentin were recognized by LruA-directed antiserum, but not by control pre-immune serum. Recombinant beta-crystallin B2 was likewise recognized by LruB-directed antiserum, but not by pre-immune serum. Moreover, uveitic eye fluids contained significantly higher levels of antiibodies that recognized alpha-crystallin B, beta-crystallin B2 and vimentin than did normal eye fluids. Our results indicate that LruA and LruB share immuno-relevant epitopes with eye proteins, suggesting that cross-reactive antibody interactions with eye antigens may contribute to immunopathogenesis of Leptospira-associated recurrent uveitis.

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