4.5 Article

A murine model of dual infection with cytomegalovirus and Pneumocystis carinii:: Effects of virus-induced immunomodulation on disease progression

期刊

VIRUS RESEARCH
卷 114, 期 1-2, 页码 35-44

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2005.05.008

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R15 HL084654, HL-62053, R01 HL062053, R15 HL084654-01A1, HL-64524] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Pneumocystis carinii (PC) pneumonia (PCP) are both leading causes of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. It has previously been reported that CMV infection modulates host immune responses with a variety of mechanisms which include the suppression of helper T cell functions and antigen presenting cell (APC) functions, both of which are critical for PCP resolution. However, the mechanisms of these interactions and other possible immune regulatory effects are not clearly understood. In this study, we investigated the impact of murine CMV (MCMV) induced immunomodulation on the progression of PCP in a co-infection model. Initial results show that dually infected mice had evidence of more severe PC disease, which include a greater loss of body weight, ail excess lung PC burden and delayed clearance of PC from lungs, compared to mice with PC infection alone. At day 7 post-infection, dually infected mice. had reduced numbers of MHC-11 expressing cells in the lung interstitium and lymph nodes and reduced migration of CD11c(+) cells to both the tracheobronchial lymph nodes and alveolar spaces. Dual infected mice showed elevated numbers of specific CD8 responses concomitant with a decrease in activated CD4(+) T cells in both the lymph nodes and in alveolar spaces when compared to mice infected with MCMV alone. These data suggest that MCMV infection inhibits the immune responses generated against PC which contribute to the delayed clearance of the organism. (c) 2005 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