4.3 Article

Naturally acquired antibodies to polyrnorphic and conserved epitopes of Plasmodium falciparum merozoite surface protein 3

期刊

PARASITE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 387-394

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3024.2007.00951.x

关键词

allele-specific; antibodies; immunity; MSP3; Plasmodium falciparum

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U190081993] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U190081993] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline
  4. MRC [MC_U190081993] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many studies on the role of merozoite surface protein 3 (MSP3) in immunity against malaria have focused on a conserved section of MSP3. New evidence suggests that polymorphic sequences within MSP3 are under immune selection. We report a detailed analysis of naturally-acquired antibodies to allele-specific and conserved parts of MSP3 in a Kenyan cohort. Indirect and competition ELISA to heterologous recombinant MSP3 proteins were used for antibody assays, and parasites were genotyped for msp3 alleles. Antibody reactivity to allele-specific and conserved epitopes of MSP3 was heterogenous between individuals. Overall, the prevalence of allele-specific antibody reactivity was significantly higher (3D7-specific 54%, K1-specific 4%) than that to a recombinant protein representing a conserved portion of C-terminal MSP3 (24%, P < 0 center dot 01). The most abundant IgG subclass was IgG3, followed by IgG1. Allele-specific reactivity to the KI-type of MSP3 was associated with a lower risk of clinical malaria episodes during a 6-month follow-up in individuals who were parasitized at the start of the malaria transmission season (Relative risk 0 center dot 41 with 95% confidence interval 0 center dot 20-0 center dot 81, P = 0 center dot 011). The potential importance of allele-specific immunity to MSP3 should be considered in addition to immunity to conserved epitopes, in the development of an MSP3 malaria vaccine.

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