4.2 Article

Neonatal Cord Blood Subsets and Cytokine Response to Bacterial Antigens

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY
卷 26, 期 9, 页码 647-657

出版社

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1220788

关键词

Term; preterm; neonate; umbilical cord blood; cytokine; immune subpopulations; memory T cells; naive T cells; natural killer subsets; adhesion molecules; bacterial antigens; IL-6; IL-8; IL-10; IL-12; interferon gamma; E. coli; S. epidermidis; group B Streptococcus; Lactobacillus plantarum

资金

  1. NIH NCI [CA 29502, R25 105012]
  2. NIH NCRR [M01 RR 6020, M01RR0004]
  3. Children's Cancer and Blood Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared lymphocyte subsets and cytokine responses to bacteria among term, preterm infants, and adults. Lymphocyte subset percentages in cord blood (22 preterm, 27 term neonates) and peripheral blood from 21 adults and cytokine/chemokine interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, interferon gamma (IFN gamma) responses to Escherichia coli, group B Streptococcus (GBS), Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Lactobacillus plantarum (Lp299v) were assessed by flow cytometry. Preterm compared with term infants had increased CD8(+) T cells (p = 0.02) and reduced naive CD4(+) T cells (p < 0.0001). Memory T and natural killer (NK) T cells were reduced (p < 0.001) in neonates; NK and CD56(+)161(+) NK cells were increased (p < 0.001). CD56(+)CD8(+) NK cells were higher in preterm compared with term infants. Despite individual exceptions, cytokine responses in neonates were weaker than adults except for IL-8 response to E. coli in preterm and IL-12 response to Lp299v in term infants. IL-10 responses were weaker in preterm (P = 0.01) and term (p = 0.005) infants to S. epidermidis and to E. coli. (p = 0.03 for both) compared with adults. Differences in regulatory subpopulations of NK and T cells between neonates and adults and term compared with preterm infants were observed. These differences rather than intrinsic functional deficiency may account for neonatal cytokine responses to bacteria.

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

4.2
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