3.9 Article

Human Immune Proteome in Experimental Colonization with Staphylococcus aureus

期刊

CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 16, 期 11, 页码 1607-1614

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00263-09

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB-TR34, GRK840]
  2. Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

More than 20% of adults are persistently colonized with Staphylococcus aureus. When hospitalized, these carriers have increased risks of infection with their own strains. However, a recent study demonstrated a lower incidence of bacteremia-related death among carriers than among noncarriers, raising the question whether the adaptive immune system plays a protective role. In fact, S. aureus carriers mount a highly specific neutralizing antibody response against superantigens of their colonizing strains. We now used 2-dimensional immunoblotting to investigate the profiles of antibodies from healthy individuals against S. aureus extracellular proteins. Moreover, we tested whether symptom-free experimental colonization of these individuals with an S. aureus strain of low virulence, 8325-4, is sufficient to induce an antibody response. Sera obtained before and 4 weeks after colonization were screened for immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody binding to extracellular staphylococcal proteins. At baseline, most volunteers harbored IgG directed against conserved virulence factors, including alpha-hemolysin (Hla), beta-hemolysin (Hlb), phospholipase C (Plc), staphylococcal serine protease (SspA), and cysteine protease (SspB). However, the variability of spot patterns and intensities was striking and could be important in case of infection. Experimental nasal colonization with S. aureus 8325-4 did not elicit new antibodies or boost the humoral response. Thus, the high antibody prevalence in humans is likely not induced by short-term nasal colonization, and presumably minor infections are required to trigger anti-S. aureus antibody responses.

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