4.7 Article

Sex differences in innate anti-viral immune responses to respiratory viruses and in their clinical outcomes in a birth cohort study

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-03044-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [MR/L012693/1, MR/K002449/2, MR/S025340/1]
  2. Asthma UK Clinical Chair [CH11SJ]
  3. European Research Council [788575]
  4. NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)
  5. Asthma UK Centre [AUK-BC-2015-01]
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [788575] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that males have deficient innate immune responses to respiratory viruses compared to females, particularly in interferon production. Early healthcare records indicate a significantly higher proportion of male infants hospitalized with respiratory infections compared to females.
The mechanisms explaining excess morbidity and mortality in respiratory infections among males are poorly understood. Innate immune responses are critical in protection against respiratory virus infections. We hypothesised that innate immune responses to respiratory viruses may be deficient in males. We stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 345 participants at age 16 years in a population-based birth cohort with three live respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A16 and A1, and respiratory syncytial virus) and two viral mimics (R848 and CpG-A, to mimic responses to SARS-CoV-2) and investigated sex differences in interferon (IFN) responses. IFN-alpha responses to all viruses and stimuli were 1.34-2.06-fold lower in males than females (P = 0.018 - < 0.001). IFN-beta, IFN-gamma and IFN-induced chemokines were also deficient in males across all stimuli/viruses. Healthcare records revealed 12.1% of males and 6.6% of females were hospitalized with respiratory infections in infancy (P = 0.017). In conclusion, impaired innate anti-viral immunity in males likely results in high male morbidity and mortality from respiratory virus infections.

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