4.4 Article

Parasitology and immunology of mice vaccinated with irradiated Litomosoides sigmodontis larvae

期刊

PARASITOLOGY
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 271-280

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0031182099005533

关键词

vaccination; filariae; Litomosoides sigmodontis; immune response; IL-5; eosinophils

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was performed with Litomosoides sigmodontis, the only filarial species which can develop from the infective larvae to the patent phase in immunocompetent laboratory BALB/c mice. Parasitological features and immune responses were analysed up to 3 months before and after challenge inoculation, by comparing 4 groups of mice: vaccinated challenged, challenged only, vaccinated only, and naive mice. Male larvae were very susceptible to irradiation and only female irradiated larvae survived in vivo. Protection, assessed by a lower recovery rate, was confirmed and was established within the first 2 days of challenge. This early reduction of the recovery rate in vaccinated challenged mice was determined by their immune status prior to the challenge inoculation. This was characterized by high specific IgM and IgG subclass (IgG1, IgG2a and IgG3) levels, high specific IL-5 secretion from spleen cells in vitro and a high density of eosinophils in the subcutaneous connective tissue. Six h after the challenge inoculation, most tissue eosinophils were degranulated in vaccinated challenged mice. Thus, in the protocol of vaccination described, protection appeared mainly to result from the stimulation of a Th2 type response and eosinophils seemed to be the main effecters for the increased killing of infective larvae in vaccinated challenged mice. Two months after challenge inoculation, the percentage of microfilaraemic mice was lower in vaccinated challenged mice as a consequence of this overall reduction in the worm load. In both vaccinated challenged and challenged only groups, the in vitro splenocyte proliferative capacity was reduced in microfilaraemic mice.

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

4.4
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