4.7 Article

Circulating IgA/IgG memory B cells against Mycobacterium tuberculosis dormancy-associated antigens Rv2659c and Rv3128c in active and latent tuberculosis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.033

关键词

Latent tuberculosis infection; Rv2659c; Rv3128c; Memory B cells

资金

  1. National Vaccine Institutes of Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that individuals with latent tuberculosis had significantly higher levels of IgA memory B cells specific to the antigen Rv2659c, and in the LTBI group, the number of IgA+ classical memory B cells was significantly higher than IgG+ memory B cells.
Objective: To elucidate the antigenic potential of dormancy-associated antigens Rv2659c and Rv3128c of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by examining the persistence of specific IgG and IgA memory B cells (MBCs) among patients with active tuberculosis (TB), household contacts with latent tuberculosis (LTBI), and an endemic healthy control group. Methods: Fresh peripheral blood mononuclear cells from the three study groups were used to enumerate the numbers of IgG and IgA MBCs specific to recombinant protein Rv2659c and Rv3128c by ELISpot assay. The composition of MBC subsets IgA+ and IgG + was analyzed by flow cytometry. Results: The number of IgA MBCs specific to antigen Rv2659c was significantly higher in the LTBI group than the TB group. In contrast, no significant difference was found in IgA or IgG MBCs against antigen Rv3128c. The number of IgA+ MBCs was significantly higher than that of IgG+ MBCs in the classical MBC subset of the LTBI group. Conclusion: The results indicated that the dormancy-associated antigen Rv2659c induced an IgA MBCs response in individuals with latent TB, and IgA+ classical MBCs formed a major portion of the MBCs subset. This new knowledge will be beneficial for the development of novel TB vaccines and their control of latent TB. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

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