4.6 Article

Induction of myocarditis and valvulitis in Lewis rats by different epitopes of cardiac myosin and its implications in rheumatic carditis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 160, 期 1, 页码 297-306

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64373-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL35280, R56 HL056267, R37 HL035280, R01 HL056267, HL56267] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R37HL035280, R56HL056267, R01HL056267, R01HL035280] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune responses against cardiac myosin and group A streptococcal M protein have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatic heart disease. Although cardiac myosin is known to produce myocarditis in susceptible animals, it has never been investigated for its role in production of valvular heart disease, the most serious sequelae of group A streptococcal infection in acute rheumatic fever. In our study, cardiac myosin induced valvulitis in the Lewis rat, and epitopes responsible for production of valvulitis were located in the rod region. Human and rat cardiac myosins Induced severe myocarditis in the Lewis rats as expected. A purified S2 fragment (amino acid sequences 842 to 1295) produced the most severe myocarditis as well as valvulitis. Different regions of light meromyosin produced valvulitis (residues 1685 to 1936) or myocarditis (residues 1529 to 1611). Because streptococcal M proteins produced valvular heart disease in Lewis rats and have been linked to anti-cardiac myosin responses, we reacted myosin-sensitized lymphocytes isolated from the hearts of Lewis rats with peptides of streptococcal M5 protein in tritiated thymidine assays. infiltrating lymphocytes responded most strongly to peptides within the B repeat region of streptococcal M protein. These data show direct evidence that Immune responses against cardiac myosin lead to valvular heart disease and the infiltration of the heart by streptococcal M protein reactive T lymphocytes.

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