4.5 Article

Immunophenotyping in post-giardiasis functional gastrointestinal disease and chronic fatigue syndrome

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-12-258

关键词

Giardia lamblia; Functional gastrointestinal disorder; Chronic fatigue syndrome; Irritable bowel syndrome; NK-cells; CD8 T-cells

资金

  1. Western Norway Regional Health Authority
  2. University of Bergen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A Giardia outbreak was associated with development of post-infectious functional gastrointestinal disorders (PI-FGID) and chronic fatigue syndrome (PI-CFS). Markers of immune dysfunction have given conflicting results in CFS and FGID patient populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate a wide selection of markers of immune dysfunction in these two co-occurring post-infectious syndromes. Methods: 48 patients, reporting chronic fatigue in a questionnaire study, were clinically evaluated five years after the outbreak and grouped according to Fukuda criteria for CFS (n=19) and idiopathic chronic fatigue (n=5) and Rome II criteria for FGIDs (n=54). 22 Giardia exposed non-fatigued individuals and 10 healthy unexposed individuals were recruited as controls. Peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets were analyzed by flow cytometry. Results: In peripheral blood we found significantly higher CD8 T-cell levels in PI-FGID, and significantly lower NK-cell levels in PI-CFS patients. Severity of abdominal and fatigue symptoms correlated negatively with NK-cell levels. A tendency towards lower T-cell CD26 expression in FGID was seen. Conclusion: Patients with PI-CFS and/or PI-FGID 5 years after Giardia lamblia infection showed alterations in NK-cell and CD8-cell populations suggesting a possible immunological abnormality in these conditions. We found no significant changes in other markers examined in this well-defined group of PI-CFS and PI-FGID elicited by a gastrointestinal infection. Controlling for co-morbid conditions is important in evaluation of CFS-biomarkers.

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

4.5
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