4.5 Article

Influence of Brugia malayi life stages and BmAFII fraction on experimental Leishmania donovani infection in hamsters

期刊

ACTA TROPICA
卷 106, 期 2, 页码 81-89

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.01.007

关键词

Leishmania donovani; Brugia malayi; BmAFII; hamsters; co-infection; NO; LTT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of live Brugia malayi parasites and a Sephadex G-200 fraction of the adult parasite extract (BmAFII) on the progression of Leishmania donovani infection was studied. Inbred hamsters were first infected with B. malayi infective 3rd stage larvae (LA adult worms or microfilariae (mf), and then with L. donavani amastigotes (Ld), or vice versa or received both the infections simultaneously; a group of animals were first immunized with BmAFII and then infected with Ld. L. donovani parasite burden was determined between 17 and 19 days post amastigote challenge (p.a.c.) and, in case of immunized animals, between 32 and 35 days p.a.c also. Nitric oxide (NO) release from peritoneal macrophages and cellular proliferative responses of lymphnode cells were assessed in BmAFII-immunized animals given leishmania infection or no infection. Leishmanial parasite burden was significantly reduced in animals exposed to filarial L-3 before amastigote inoculation and in animals given filarial adult worms after or together with amastigotes. Prior immunization of leishmania-infected animals with BmAFII also reduced the leishmanial parasite burden (17-19 days p.a.c.: >90%; 32-35 days p.a.c.: 60%). These animals showed upregulation of NO release and cellular proliferative responses to promastigote antigen or BmAFII stimulation in vitro. The findings show, for the first time, that B. malayi L-3/adult worms or immunization with BmAFII inhibits progression of L. donovani infection in hamsters and this is associated with upregulation of NO and lymphocyte proliferative responses indicating that Th1 response might be responsible for this. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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