4.6 Article

T-box transcription-factor-deficient mice display increased joint pathology and failure of infection control during staphylococcal arthritis

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 529-535

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2004.02.005

关键词

T-bet; Staphylococcus; arthritis; sepsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To study the impact of T-box transcription factor (T-bet) on initiation and progression of Staphylococcus aureus sepsis and arthritis, T bet-deficient mice (T-bet(-/-)) and their wild-type controls (T-bet(+/+)) were intravenously inoculated with 8 x 10(6) S. aureus. Already 48 h after inoculation of S. aureus, T-bet-deficient mice displayed increased frequency (62% versus 19%, P = 0.002) as well as severity of arthritis compared with wild-type controls. The bacterial counts were significantly increased in T-bet(-/-) mice compared with T-bet(+/+) as measured in kidneys 72 h after the inoculation (4.3 +/- 1.8 x 10(7) versus 3.2 +/- 3.2 x 10(6) colony-forming units (CFU); P= 0.003). As expected, T-bet-deficient mice displayed significantly decreased production of IFN-gamma (10-15-fold) at 24 and 72 h after bacterial inoculation compared with wild-type mice. Interestingly, in the absence of T-bet, serum IL-4 was decreased at 24 h. IL-6 did not differ at early stage of infection but was sixfold increased in T-bet(-/-) mice over T-bet(+/+) animals at 72 h postinoculation. Ten days after the inoculation, T-bet(-/-) mice still displayed significantly more pronounced weight loss and increased serum IL-6 levels, probably due to increased bacterial burden compared with T-bet(+/+) mice. The cumulative mortality was 19% in T-bet mice (5/27) and 0% (0/27) in control animals (P = 0.05). In conclusion, T-bet plays an important role in early response to S. aureus infection, protecting against bacterial accumulation, cachexia and septic death. Furthermore T-bet downregulates joint inflammation in the early phase of disease. (C) 2004 Elsevier SAS. 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

4.6
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