4.6 Review

Immune response during hantavirus diseases: implications for immunotherapies and vaccine design

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY
卷 163, 期 3, 页码 262-277

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/imm.13322

关键词

haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome; hantavirus; hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome; immune response; vaccines

资金

  1. FONDECYT [1190830, 1190864]
  2. ANID PAI project [I781902009]
  3. Millennium Institute on Immunology and Immunotherapy [P09/016-F, ICN09_016]
  4. [21170620]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Orthohantaviruses, formerly known as hantaviruses, cause two emerging zoonotic diseases with varying fatality rates. Specific treatments or vaccines have not been approved by the FDA yet. The immune response plays a crucial role in the disease progression.
Orthohantaviruses, previously named hantaviruses, cause two emerging zoonotic diseases: haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) in Eurasia and hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome (HCPS) in the Americas. Overall, over 200 000 cases are registered every year worldwide, with a fatality rate ranging between 0 center dot 1% and 15% for HFRS and between 20% and 40% for HCPS. No specific treatment or vaccines have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat or prevent hantavirus-caused syndromes. Currently, little is known about the mechanisms at the basis of hantavirus-induced disease. However, it has been hypothesized that an excessive inflammatory response plays an essential role in the course of the disease. Furthermore, the contributions of the cellular immune response to either viral clearance or pathology have not been fully elucidated. This article discusses recent findings relative to the immune responses elicited to hantaviruses in subjects suffering HFRS or HCPS, highlighting the similarities and differences between these two clinical diseases. Also, we summarize the most recent data about the cellular immune response that could be important for designing new vaccines to prevent this global public health problem.

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