4.7 Article

Chronic rhinosinusitis: An enhanced immune response to ubiquitous airborne fungi

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 114, 期 6, 页码 1369-1375

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2004.08.012

关键词

chronic rhinosinusitis; immune response; cytokines; inflammation; fungus; Alternaria

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI49235] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is one of the most common long-term illnesses in the United States. The etiology of CRS is unknown, and no effective treatment has been established. Objective: We investigated the hypothesis that abnormal immunologic responses to ubiquitous airborne fungi contribute to the pathogenesis of this disease. Methods: The proliferative and cytokine responses of PBMCs to extracts from 4 common airborne fungi-including Alternaria, Aspergillus, Cladosporium, and Penicillium-were examined by in vitro culture. Serum specimens were tested for specific IgE and IgG to these fungi. Results: PBMCs from approximately 90% of the patients with CRS, but not those from normal individuals, produced both IL-5 and IL-13 when exposed to Alternaria. Furthermore, PBMCs from patients with CRS produced significantly more IFN-gamma than PBMCs from normal individuals in response to Alternaria (median, 553 pg/mL vs 98 pg/mL; P <.01). Levels of serum IgG antibodies to Alternaria and Cladosporium were clearly increased in patients with CRS compared with normal individuals (P <.01). Less than 30% of the patients with CRS had specific IgE antibodies to Alternaria or Cladosporium. The increased Immoral (serum IgG) response strongly correlated with the increased cellular (IL-5 production) response to Alternaria (r = 0.619; P < .01). Conclusion: Patients with CRS show exaggerated Immoral and cellular responses, both T(H)1 and T(H)2 types, to common airborne fungi, particularly Alternaria. The anomalous immune and inflammatory responses to ubiquitous fungi may explain the chronicity of airway inflammation in CRS.

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

4.7
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