4.4 Article

Distinct CD4+-T-cell responses to live and heat-inactivated Aspergillus fumigatus conidia

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 73, 期 11, 页码 7170-7179

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.73.11.7170-7179.2005

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA09149, T32 CA009149] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aspergillus fumigatus is an important fungal pathogen that causes invasive pulmonary disease in immuno-compromised hosts. Respiratory exposure to A. fumigatus spores also causes allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, a Th2 CD4(+) -T-cell-mediated disease that accompanies asthma. The microbial factors that influence the differentiation of A. fumigatus-specific CD4(+) T lymphocytes into Th1 versus Th2 cells remain incompletely defined. We therefore examined CD4(+) -T-cell responses of immunologically intact mice to intratracheal challenge with live or heat-inactivated A.fumigatus spores. Live but not heat-inactivated fungal spores resulted in recruitment of gamma interferon (IFN-gamma)-producing, fungus-specific CD4(+) T cells to lung airways, achieving A. fumigatus-specific frequencies exceeding 5% of total CD4(+) T cells. While heat-in activated spores did not induce detectable levels of IFN-gamma-producing, A.fumigatus-specific CD4(+) T cells in the airways, they did prime CD4(+) T-cell responses in draining lymph nodes that produced greater amounts of interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 than T cells responding to live conidia. While immunization with live fungal spores induced antibody responses, we found a marked decrease in isotype-switched, A. fumigatus-specific antibodies in sera of mice following immunization with heat-inactivated spores. Our studies demonstrate that robust Th1 T-cell and humoral responses are restricted to challenge with fungal spores that have the potential to germinate and cause invasive infection. How the adaptive immune system distinguishes between metabolically active and inactive fungal spores remains an important question.

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

4.4
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