4.3 Article

Proteomic profile of circulating immune complexes in chronic Chagas disease

期刊

PARASITE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 38, 期 10, 页码 609-617

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pim.12341

关键词

cardiopathy; Chagas disease; immune complex; megacolon; tandem mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan
  2. Research Foundation for Pharmaceutical Sciences
  3. Nagasaki University
  4. Joint Research Promotion Project of Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences
  5. NEKKEN
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K15373, 26670283] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune complexes (ICs) are the direct and real-time products of humoral immune responses. The identification of constituent foreign or autoantigens within ICs might bring new insights into the pathology of infectious diseases. We applied immune complexome analysis of plasma to the study of Chagas disease caused by Trypanosoma cruzi. Twenty seropositive plasma samples including cardiac and/or megacolon determinate patients (n = 11) and indeterminate (n = 9) were analysed along with 10 seronegative individuals to characterize the antigens bound to circulating ICs. We identified 39 T. cruzi antigens and 114 human autoantigens specific to patients with Chagas. Among those antigens, two T. cruzi antigens (surface protease GP63, glucose-6-isomerase) and six human autoantigens (CD180 antigen, ceruloplasmin, fibrinogen beta chain, fibrinogen beta chain isoform 2 preprotein, isoform gamma-A of fibrinogen -chain, serum paraoxonase) were detected in more than 50% of the patients tested. Human isoform short of complement factor H-related protein 2 and trans-sialidase of T. cruzi were more frequently found in the indeterminate (5/9 for both) compared with in the determinate Chagas (0/11, P = 0046 for human, 1/11, P = 00498 for T. cruzi). The immune complexome could illustrate the difference of immune status between clinical forms of chronic Chagas disease.

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

4.3
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