4.4 Article

Identifying control mechanisms of granuloma formation during M-tuberculosis infection using an agent-based model

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 231, 期 3, 页码 357-376

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.031

关键词

granuloma formation; tuberculosis; agent based model; Mycobacterium tuberculosis

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01HL68526] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a major world health problem. An estimated 2 billion people are presently infected and the disease causes approximately 3 million deaths per year. After bacteria are inhaled into the lung, a complex immune response is triggered leading to the formation of multicellular structures termed granulomas. It is believed that the collection of host granulomas either contain bacteria resulting in a latent infection or are unable to do so, leading to active disease. Thus, understanding granuloma formation and function is essential for improving both diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis. Granuloma formation is a complex spatio-temporal system involving interactions of bacteria, specific immune cells, including macrophages. CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, as well as immune effectors such as chemokine and cytokines. To study this complex dynamical system we have developed an agent-based model of granuloma formation in the lung. This model combines continuous representations of chemokines with discrete agent representations of macrophages and T cells in a cellular automata-like environment. Our results indicate that key host elements involved in granuloma formation are chemokine diffusion, prevention of macrophage overcrowding within the granuloma, arrival time, location and number of T cells within the granuloma, and an overall host ability to activate macrophages. Interestingly, a key bacterial factor is its intracellular growth rate, whereby slow growth actually facilitates survival. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.4
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