4.7 Article

Multi-parameter flow cytometry immunophenotyping distinguishes different stages of tuberculosis infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 81, 期 1, 页码 57-71

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.064

关键词

Tuberculosis; Immunophenotype; TB diagnosis; Blood cells biomarkers; Flow cytometry

资金

  1. EU [643558]
  2. Xunta de Galicia Grupo Referencia Competitiva [ED431C 2016/041]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Education (FPU predoctoral grants program)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To identify new potential host biomarkers in blood to discriminate between active TB patients, uninfected (NoTBI) and latently infected contacts (LTBI). Methods: A blood cell count was performed to study parent leukocyte populations. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated and a multi-parameter flow cytometry assay was conducted to study the distribution of basal and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb)-stimulated lymphocytes. Differences between groups and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were investigated to assess the diagnostic accuracy. Results: Active TB patients presented higher Monocyte-to-lymphocyte and Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios than LTBI and NoTBI contacts (p<0.0001; AUC>0.8). Lymphocyte subsets with differences (p >0.05; AUC >0.7) between active TB and both contact groups include the basal distribution of Th1/Th2 ratio, Th1-Th17, CD4+ Central Memory (T-CM) or MAIT cells. Expression of CD154 is increased in Mtb-activated CD4+ T-CM and Effector Memory T cells in active TB and LTBI compared to NoTBI. In CD4+ T cells, expression of CD154 showed a higher accuracy than IFN gamma to discriminate Mtb-specific activation. Conclusions: We identified different cell subsets with potential use in tuberculosis diagnosis. Among them, distribution of CD4 T-CM cells and their expression of CD154 after Mtb-activation are the most promising candidates. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association.

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