4.6 Article

Evaluation of the Expression of CCR5 and CX3CR1 Receptors and Correlation with the Functionality of T Cells in Women infected with ZIKV during Pregnancy

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v13020191

关键词

ZIKV; pregnancy; T cells; inflammatory response; cytotoxic activity; chemokine receptors

类别

资金

  1. CNPq
  2. IOC/Fiocruz
  3. National Institutes of Health [75N9301900065]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated how the immune response to ZIKV during pregnancy affects the clinical outcome of babies, finding a correlation between the T cell responses of mothers and whether the child was born with congenital Zika syndrome (CZS).
There have been reports of neurological abnormalities associated with the Zika virus (ZIKV), such as congenital Zika syndrome (CZS) in children born to mothers infected during pregnancy. We investigated how the immune response to ZIKV during pregnancy is primed and conduct a thorough evaluation of the inflammatory and cytotoxic profiles as well as the expression of CCR5 and CX3CR1. We compared the reactivity of T cells to ZIKV peptides in convalescent mothers infected during pregnancy. The child's clinical outcome (i.e., born with or without CZS) was taken to be the variable. The cells were stimulated in vitro with ZIKV peptides and evaluated using the ELISPOT and flow cytometry assays. After in vitro stimulation with ZIKV peptides, we observed a tendency toward a higher Interferon gamma (IFN-gamma)-producing T cell responses in mothers who had asymptomatic children and a higher CD107a expression in T cells in mothers who had children with CZS. We found a higher frequency of T cells expressing CD107a+ and co-expressing CX3CR1+CCR5+, which is much clearer in the T cells of mothers who had CZS children. We suggest that this differential profile influenced the clinical outcome of babies. These data need to be further investigated, including the evaluation of other ZIKV peptides and markers and functional assays.

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