4.6 Article

CD34+ Cord Blood Cell-Transplanted Rag2-/- γc-/- Mice as a Model for Epstein-Barr Virus Infection

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 173, 期 5, 页码 1369-1378

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.071186

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministero dell'Universita e delta Ricerca
  2. Fondazione Monte del Paschi di Siena Foundation
  3. University of Siena
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation [3100A0102221]
  5. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies suggest that Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) can infect naive B cells, driving them to differentiate into resting memory B cells via the germinal center reaction. This hypothesis has been inferred from parallels with the biology of normal B cells but has never been proven experimentally. Rag2(-/-) gamma(-/-)(c) mice that were transplanted with human CD34(+) cord blood cells as newborns were recently shown to develop human B, T, and dendritic cells, constituting lymphoid organs in situ. Here we used this model to better define the strategy of EBV infection of human B cells in vivo and to compare this model system with different conditions of EBV infection in humans. Our results support the model of EBV persistence in vivo in cases that were characterized by follicular hyperplasia and a relatively normal CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell distribution. Intriguingly, in cases that were characterized by nodular and diffuse proliferation with a preponderance of CD8+ T cells, similar to infectious mononucleosis, EBV still infects naive B cells but also induces clonal expansion and ongoing somatic mutations without germinal center reactions. Our results reveal different strategies of EBV infection in B cells that possibly result from variations in the host immune response. Future experiments might allow understanding of the mechanisms responsible for persistent EBV infection and provide targets for more highly tailored therapeutic interventions. (Am J Pathol 2008, 173:1369-1378; DOI.- 10.2353/ajpath.2008.071186)

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

4.6
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