4.7 Article

The contraceptive medroxyprogesterone acetate, unlike norethisterone, directly increases R5 HIV-1 infection in human cervical explant tissue at physiologically relevant concentrations

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40756-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD083026] Funding Source: Medline
  2. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [R01HD083026] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intramuscular progestin-only injectable contraceptive, depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), is more widely used in Sub-Saharan Africa than another injectable contraceptive, norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN). Epidemiological data show a significant 1.4-fold increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition for DMPA-IM usage, while no such association is shown from limited data for NET-EN. We show that MPA, unlike NET, significantly increases R5-tropic but not X4-tropic HIV-1 replication ex vivo in human endocervical and ectocervical explant tissue from pre-menopausal donors, at physiologically relevant doses. Results support a mechanism whereby MPA, unlike NET, acts via the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) to increase HIV-1 replication in cervical tissue by increasing the relative frequency of CD4+ T cells and activated monocytes. We show that MPA, unlike NET, increases mRNA expression of the CD4 HIV-1 receptor and CCR5 but not CXCR4 chemokine receptors, via the GR. However, increased density of CD4 on CD3+ cells was not observed with MPA by flow cytometry of digested tissue. Results suggest that DMPA-IM may increase HIV-1 acquisition in vivo at least in part via direct effects on cervical tissue to increase founder R5-tropic HIV-1 replication. Our findings support differential biological mechanisms and disaggregation of DMPA-IM and NET-EN regarding HIV-1 acquisition risk category for use in high risk areas.

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