4.4 Article

Blood group, immunity, and risk of infection with Vibrio cholerae in an area of endemicity

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 73, 期 11, 页码 7422-7427

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.73.11.7422-7427.2005

关键词

-

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [K01 TW007144, K01 TW07144, D43 TW05572, D43 TW005572] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [U01 AI58935, AI40725, T32 AI007061, U01 AI058935, R01 AI040725] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [K12-HD00850, K12 HD000850] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals with blood group O are more susceptible than other individuals to severe cholera, although the mechanism underlying this association is unknown. To assess the respective roles of both intrinsic host factors and adaptive immune responses that might influence susceptibility to infection with Vibrio cholerae, we prospectively followed a cohort of household contacts of patients with cholera in Bangladesh. In this study, we made the novel observation that persons with blood group O were less likely than those with other blood groups to become infected with V. cholerae O1 (odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.85; P = 0.008). Consistent with prior studies, however, household contacts with blood group O were more likely to develop severe illness if infected with V. cholerae O1 (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.59; P = 0.05). While blood group O protected significantly against infection with V. cholerae O1, there was no evidence of protection against V. cholerae O139. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that the association between blood group O and protection from infection with V. cholerae O1 was independent of age, gender, and baseline anti-cholera toxin and vibriocidal antibody titers. Based on this epidemiologic evidence, we propose a hypothesis for understanding the association between blood group O and the risk of infection with V. cholerae O1 and O139 as well as the risk of developing severe symptoms once infected.

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