4.5 Article

High levels of CD4+ CTLA-4+ Treg cells and CCR5 density in HIV-1-infected patients with visceral leishmaniasis

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-014-2229-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish AIDS Network Red Tematica Cooperativa de Investigacion en SIDA [RD06/0006]
  2. Spanish National Health System
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS-PI13-01024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in HIV-1-infected patients has been associated with poor immunological recovery and frequent disease relapses. The aim of this study was to analyse the role of T cell populations, Treg cells and CCR5 density in patients with VL compared to HIV-1-infected patients without leishmaniasis. A cross-sectional study of nine Leishmania-HIV-1-coinfected (LH) patients with VL receiving suppressive cART for at least 1 year were compared to 16 HIV-1-infected patients with non-immunological response (NIR, CD4 count below 250 cells/mm(3)) and 26 HIV-1-infected patients with immunological response (IR, CD4 count above 500 cells/mm(3)) without leishmaniasis. LH patients had a deep depletion of na < ve T cells (p = 0.002), despite similar levels of effector T cells compared to NIR patients. CD4 Treg cells were similar compared to NIR patients, but higher compared to IR patients (p < 0.001). Interestingly, CD4 Treg CTLA-4(+) cells were higher in LH patients compared to either NIR or IR patients (p = 0.022 and p < 0.001, respectively), and the CD4 Treg/TEM ratio was similar to NIR patients, but higher compared to IR patients (p = 0.017). CCR5(+) T cell levels were higher compared to IR patients (p < 0.001), while CCR5 density on T cells were higher compared to both NIR and IR patients (p < 0.005 in both cases). Higher levels of CD4(+) CTLA-4(+) Treg cells and CCR5 density on CD8(+) T cells are strongly associated with VL in HIV-1-infected patients. Also, these patients have a poor immunological profile that might explain the persistence and relapse of the pathogen.

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

4.5
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