4.7 Article

The Impact of Aging and Toll-like Receptor 2 Deficiency on the Clinical Outcomes of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 228, 期 3, 页码 332-342

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiad046

关键词

Staphylococcus aureus; TLR2; aging; bacteremia; mouse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study using a mouse model of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, aging and TLR2 deficiency were found to impair immune responses in distinct patterns. Mortality was mainly controlled by aging, while weight loss and kidney abscess formation were more TLR2 dependent. Aging increased mortality independent of TLR2 expression.
Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) causes a broad range of infections. Toll-like receptor (TLR) 2 senses the S. aureus lipoproteins in S. aureus infections. Aging raises the risk of infection. Our aim was to understand how aging and TLR2 affect the clinical outcomes of S. aureus bacteremia. Four groups of mice (wild type/young, wild type/old, TLR2(-/-)/young, and TLR2(-/-)/old) were intravenously infected with S. aureus, and the infection course was followed. Both TLR2 deficiency and aging enhanced the susceptibility to disease. Increased age was the main contributing factor for increased mortality rates and changes in spleen weight, whereas other clinical parameters, such as weight loss and kidney abscess formation, were more TLR2 dependent. Importantly, aging increased mortality rates without relying on TLR2. In vitro, both aging and TLR2 deficiency down-regulated cytokine/chemokine production of immune cells with distinct patterns. In summary, we demonstrate that aging and TLR2 deficiency impair the immune response to S. aureus bacteremia in distinct ways. In Staphylococus aureus bacteremia mouse model, aging and TLR2 deficiency impair the immune responses in distinct patterns. Mortality was more controlled by aging, whereas weight loss and kidney abscess were more TLR2 dependent. Aging increased mortality independent of TLR2 expression.

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