4.7 Article

Analysis and Fine Specificity of the HCMV-Specific Cell-Free and Cell-Associated Antibody-Dependent Cellular Phagocytosis (ADCP) Responses in Lung Transplant Recipients

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22158206

关键词

HCMV; ADCP; antibody; phagocytosis

资金

  1. Center for Virology, Medical University of Vienna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that a strong HCMV-specific ADCP response is elicited in transplant recipients, which may contribute to protection from high-level viremia in primary HCMV infection, especially after receiving a lung transplant from an HCMV-positive donor.
Human Cytomegalovirus (HCMV) may cause severe infections in transplant recipients. HCMV-replication can be limited by HCMV-specific antibody responses. The impact of the antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) on inhibition of HCMV-replication in natural infections has not been clarified. Therefore, we investigated the HCMV-specific ADCP response in a study cohort of lung-transplant recipients (LTRs) with different donor (D) and recipient (R) HCMV-serostatus. Follow-up plasma samples from 39 non/low-viremic and 36 highly viremic (>1000 HCMV copies/mL plasma) LTRs were collected for one (R+ LTRs) or two (D+/R- LTRs) years post-transplantation. The HCMV-specific ADCP responses were assessed by focal expansion assays (FEA) and flow-cytometry. In all LTRs, ADCP responses were detected against HCMV-infected cells and cell-free virions. When measured in fibroblasts as well as with cell-free virus, the HCMV-specific ADPC response was higher in LTRs than in HCMV-seropositive healthy controls. In D+/R- LTRs, a significant ADCP response developed over time after the receipt of an HCMV positive lung, and a level of <19 IE+ cells/focus in the FEA on fibroblasts was associated with further protection from high-level viremia. Taken together, a strong HCMV-specific ADCP response is elicited in transplant recipients, which may contribute to protection from high-level viremia in primary HCMV infection.

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