4.8 Article

Mucosal plasma cells are required to protect the upper airway and brain from infection

期刊

IMMUNITY
卷 55, 期 11, 页码 2118-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2022.08.017

关键词

-

资金

  1. Duke School of Medicine Whitehead Family Scholarship [1R01NS121067, 1R21AG074324]
  2. [T32AI052077]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, using multiple viral infection models in mice, researchers found that blood-borne antibodies were unable to protect the olfactory epithelium in the upper airway. They identified a restrictive blood-endothelial barrier that excluded circulating antibodies from the olfactory mucosa, and demonstrated that plasma cells must reside within olfactory tissue to achieve sterilizing immunity. The study has important implications for vaccinology, respiratory and CNS pathogen transmission, and B cell fate decisions.
While blood antibodies mediate protective immunity in most organs, whether they protect nasal surfaces in the upper airway is unclear. Using multiple viral infection models in mice, we found that blood-borne antibodies could not defend the olfactory epithelium. Despite high serum antibody titers, pathogens infected nasal turbinates, and neurotropic microbes invaded the brain. Using passive antibody transfers and parabiosis, we identified a restrictive blood-endothelial barrier that excluded circulating antibodies from the olfactory mucosa. Plasma cell depletions demonstrated that plasma cells must reside within olfactory tissue to achieve sterilizing immunity. Antibody blockade and genetically deficient models revealed that this local immunity required CD4+ T cells and CXCR3. Many vaccine adjuvants failed to generate olfactory plasma cells, but mucosal immunizations established humoral protection of the olfactory surface. Our identification of a blood-olfactory barrier and the requirement for tissue-derived antibody has implications for vaccinology, respiratory and CNS pathogen transmission, and B cell fate decisions.

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

4.8
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