4.6 Article

Optic Neuritis in Different Strains of Mice by a Recombinant HSV-1 Expressing Murine Interleukin-2

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 3275-3282

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-3211

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Eye Institute [EY15557]
  2. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY015557] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. The authors have shown previously that a recombinant HSV-1 that constitutively expresses two copies of murine IL-2 (HSV-IL-2) induces demyelination by activated CD8(+) T cells in the brain and spinal cord of ocularly infected female BALB/c mice. The present study was conducted to determine whether the ocular infection with this recombinant virus induces optic neuritis independent of virus dose, major histocompatibility complex (MHC) background, or sex. METHODS. Female BALB/c, C57BL/6, SJL/6, and 129SVE mice and male BALB/c mice were ocularly infected with different doses of recombinant HSV-IL-2 virus. Demyelination of optic nerves in infected mice was monitored histologically using Luxol fast blue staining and by measurement of visual-evoked cortical potentials (VECPs). RESULTS. Both focal and diffuse regions of demyelination of the optic nerves were observed in the HSV-IL-2-infected mice as early as day 10 after infection and as late as day 60 after infection (the final experimental time point) in all strains of mice tested. Optic nerve demyelination was not observed in control mice ocularly infected with HSV-IL-4 or wild-type HSV-1. VECP responses were delayed significantly in the HSV-IL-2-infected mice compared with mice infected with control viruses. CONCLUSIONS. The results demonstrate for the first time that a combination of viral infection and constitutive expression of IL-2, but not IFN-gamma or IL-4, can result in demyelination and visual impairment in the optic nerves of ocularly infected mice. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:3275-3282) DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-3211

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