4.7 Article

The role of natural killer cells in protection of mice against death and corneal scarring following ocular HSV-1 infection

期刊

ANTIVIRAL RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 33-45

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-3542(99)00075-3

关键词

HSV-1; NK depleted mice; corneal scarring

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY09224] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY009224] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

C57BL/6 mice depleted of NK (natural killer) cells with anti-asialo-GM1 antibody were more susceptible to lethal HSV-1 ocular challenge (12% survival) than control C57BL/6 mice (100% survival), CD4(+) depleted mice (100% survival), CD8(+) depleted mice (80% survival), or macrophage depleted mice (85% survival). NK depletion also resulted in significantly higher levels of HSV-1 induced corneal scarring than was seen with any of the other groups. C57BL/6 mice depleted of NK cells with PK136 (anti-NK1.1 antibody which is more specific for NK cells than is anti-asialo-GM1 antibody) were also more susceptible to HSV-1 ocular challenge than T cell or macrophage depleted mice. Vaccination completely protected NK depleted mice against death and corneal scarring. In contrast to C57BL/6 mice, in BALB/c mice, NK depletion had no effect on survival or corneal scarring following ocular HSV-I challenge. Experiments with IFN-gamma knockout mice (IFN-gamma(o/o) mice) suggested that IFN-gamma played a minor role in protection of naive mice against death following HSV-I challenge. However, IFN-gamma did not appear to be an important factor in protection against HSV-1 induced eye disease. Thus, protection against HSV-1 induced corneal scarring in naive mice appeared to be due to a non-INF-gamma NK function. Our results therefore suggest that NK cells were very important in protecting naive C57BL/6 mice but not vaccinated C57BL/6 mice against corneal scarring and death following ocular HSV-1 challenge. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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