4.6 Article

Immunological memory in B-cell-deficient mice conveys long-lasting protection against genital tract infection with Chlamydia trachomatis by rapid recruitment of T cells

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 199-208

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2567.2001.01167.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of antibodies and antigen deposition Tor the development of immunological memory has been incompletely investigated. We addressed whether long-term protection and T-cell memory can be stimulated against a genital tract infection with human Chlamydia trachomatis serovar D in B-cell-deficient (mu MT) mice. At 6 months following a primary infection with C. trachomatis, both mu MT and wild-type (WT) mice exhibited strong and comparable protection against reinfection. Evidence of long-lasting CD4(+) T-cell memory was found in both mu MT and WT mice, typified by comparable delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) reactions against chlamydial antigens. No bacterial or chlamydial DNA was found in the genital tract of mu MT memory mice, suggesting that immunological memory was maintained in the absence of antigen. Whereas few T cells were present in the genital tract of memory mice, rapid recruitment of CD4(+) and some CD8(+). T cells into the genital tract tissue was observed after challenge with live bacteria. Accumulation of T cells in the genital tract was preceded by a short transient infection of similar magnitude in both mu MT and WT memory mice, arguing against a long-term protective role of local antibodies. The rapid recruitment of CD4(+) T cells into the genital tract was associated with a transient detection of interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) mRNA in the genital tract in chlamydia-immune memory mice, which was not round in naive. challenged mice. Thus, long-term protection in the genital tract against C. trachomatis infection is conveyed by IFN-gamma -producing CD4(+) memory T cells, which appear to be maintained in the absence of antibodies and local antigen deposition.

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