4.4 Article

T-cell reactivity against streptococcal antigens in the periphery mirrors reactivity of heart-infiltrating T lymphocytes in rheumatic heart disease patients

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 69, 期 9, 页码 5345-5351

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.9.5345-5351.2001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

T-cell molecular mimicry between streptococcal and heart proteins has been proposed as the triggering factor leading to autoimmunity in rheumatic heart disease (RHD). We searched for immunodominant T-cell M5 epitopes among RHD patients with defined clinical outcomes and compared the T-cell reactivities of peripheral blood and intralesional T cells from patients with severe RHD. The role of HLA class II molecules in the presentation of M5 peptides was also evaluated. We studied the T-cell reactivity against M5 peptides and heart proteins on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from 74 RHD patients grouped according to the severity of disease, along with intralesional and peripheral T-cell clones from RHD patients. Peptides encompassing residues 1 to 25, 81 to 103, 125 to 139, and 163 to 177 were more frequently recognized by PBMC from RHD patients than by those from controls. The M5 peptide encompassing residues 81 to 96 [M5(81-96) peptide] was most frequently recognized by PBMC from HLA-DR7(+) DR53(+) patients with severe RHD, and 46.9% (15 of 32) and 43% (3 of 7) of heart-infiltrating and PBMC-derived peptide-reactive T-cell clones, respectively, recognized the M5(81-103) region. Heart proteins were recognized more frequently by PBMC from patients with severe RHD than by those from patients with mild RHD. The similar pattern of T-cell reactivity found with both peripheral blood and heart-infiltrating T cells is consistent with the migration of M-protein-sensitized T cells to the heart tissue. Conversely, the presence of heart-reactive T cells in the PBMC of patients with severe RHD also suggests a spillover of sensitized T cells from the heart lesion.

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