4.2 Article

Onchocerca volvulus: Comparative analysis of antibody responses to recombinant antigens in two animal models of onchocerciasis

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL PARASITOLOGY
卷 94, 期 3, 页码 158-162

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/expr.2000.4487

关键词

onchocerciasis; Onchocerca volvulus; chimpanzee; Onchocerca ochengi; cattle; recombinant antigens; antibody response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Onchocerca volvulus: Comparative analysis of antibody responses to recombinant antigens in two animal models of onchocerciasis. Experimental Parasitology 94, 158-162. Experimental infections of chimpanzees with Onchocerca volvulus and cattle with Onchocerca ochengi provide model systems for research in human onchocerciasis. These infections share many similarities from the standpoint of parasite biology, but little is known about the comparability of immune responses in the two systems. To make a direct comparison between the models in terms of immune responsiveness to defined parasite products, three recombinant antigens of O. volvulus (Ov7, Ov103, and B20) were used to analyze the kinetics of antibody production following experimental infection. Each of the antigens was derived from adult cDNA libraries following immunoscreening with sera from chimpanzees (Ov7, Ov103) or cattle (B20). All chimpanzees (n = 12) and cattle (n = 8) displayed responses to Ov7 and Ov103, and all cattle, but only 33% of chimpanzees, showed responses to B20. The dynamics of the response to individual antigens showed further similarities between the chimpanzees and the cattle, with responses to Ov7 and Ov103 peaking after, and B20 before, the onset of patent infections. We conclude that there is good preliminary evidence of concordance in the kinetics of serological responses in the two models. However, individual antigens many be more or less immunogenic in the two systems, making it inadvisable to extrapolate between models concerning the relative immunodominance of specific parasite products. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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

4.2
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