3.9 Article

Specificity of subcapsular antibody responses in Ethiopian patients following disease caused by serogroup A meningococci

期刊

CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 863-871

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00252-07

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [146185/730]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dissecting the specificities of human antibody responses following disease caused by serogroup A meningococci may be important for the development of improved vaccines. We performed a study of Ethiopian patients during outbreaks in 2002 and 2003. Sera were obtained from 71 patients with meningitis caused by bacteria of sequence type 7, as confirmed by PCR or culture, and from 113 Ethiopian controls. Antibody specificities were analyzed by immunoblotting (IB) against outer membrane antigen extracts of a reference strain and of the patients' own isolates and by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels against lipooligosaccharide (LOS) L11 and the proteins NadA and NspA. IB revealed that the main antigens targeted were the proteins PorA, PorB, RmpM, and Opa/OpcA, as well as LOS. MenA disease induced significant increases in IgG against LOS L11 and NadA. The IgG levels against LOS remained elevated following disease, whereas the IgG anti-NadA levels returned to acute-phase levels in the late convalescent phase. Among adults, the anti-LOS IgG levels were similar in acute-phase patient sera as in control sera, whereas anti-NadA IgG levels were significantly higher in acute-phase sera than in controls. The IgG antibody levels against LOS and NadA correlated moderately but significantly with serum bactericidal activity against MenA strains. Future studies on immune response during MenA disease should take into account the high levels of anti-MenA polysaccharide IgG commonly found in the population and seek to clarify the role of antibodies against subcapsular antigens in protection against MenA disease.

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

3.9
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