4.6 Article

Neutrophil accumulation around Onchocerca worms and chemotaxis of neutrophils are dependent on Wolbachia endobacteria

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 3, 期 6, 页码 439-446

出版社

EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1286-4579(01)01399-5

关键词

Onchocerca; Wolbachia; endobacteria; neutrophilic granulocytes; chemotaxis; tumor necrosis factor; interleukin 8

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unlike in many other helminth infections, neutrophilic granulocytes are major cellular components in the host's immune response against filarial worms. The pathways that drive the immune response involving neutrophils are unclear. This study shows that Wolbachia endobacteria (detectable by polyclonal antibodies against endobacterial heat shock protein 60 and catalase and by polymerase chain reaction being sensitive to doxycycline treatment) are direct and indirect sources of signals accounting for neutrophil accumulation around adult Onchocerca volvulus filariae. Worm nodules from untreated onchocerciasis patients displayed a strong neutrophil infiltrate adjacent to the live adult worms. In contrast, in patients treated with doxycycline to eliminate the endobacteria from O. volvulus and to render the worms sterile, the neutrophil accumulation around live adult filariae was drastically reduced. Neutrophils were absent in worm nodules from the deer filaria Onchocera flexuosa, a species which does not contain endobacteria. Extracts of O. volvulus extirpated from untreated patients showed neutrophil chemotactic activity and in addition, induced strong TNF-alpha and IL-8 production in human monocytes, in contrast to filarial extracts obtained after doxycycline treatment. Thus, neutrophil chemotaxis and activation are induced directly by endobacterial products and also indirectly via chemokine induction by monocytes. These results show that the neutrophil response is a characteristic of endobacteria-containing filariae. (C) 2001 Editions scientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS.

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