4.6 Article

The role of mannose-binding lectin in pneumococcal infection

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 131-139

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00174111

关键词

Mannose-binding lectin; pneumococcus; polymorphism; sepsis; Streptococcus pneumoniae; surfactant protein

资金

  1. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Ministerio de Sanidad [FIS 02/1620, 04/1190, 06/1031, 10/01718]
  2. European Regional Development Fund-European Social Fund (FEDER-FSE) [RedRespira-ISCIII-RTIC-03/11]
  3. Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica' (SEPAR) FUNCIS, Gobierno de Canarias [04/09, INREDCAN 5/06]
  4. FUNCIS
  5. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of mannose-binding lectin (MBL) deficiency (MBL2; XA/O and O/O genotypes) in host defences remains controversial. The surfactant proteins (SP)-A1, -A2 and -D, other collectins whose genes are located near MBL2, are part of the first-line lung defence against infection. We analysed the role of MBL on susceptibility to pneumococcal infection and the existence of linkage disequilibrium (LD) among the four genes. We studied 348 patients with pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (P-CAP) and 2,110 controls. A meta-analysis of MBL2 genotypes in susceptibility to P-CAP and to invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) was also performed. The extent of LD of MBL2 with SFTPA1, SFTPA2 and SFTPD was analysed. MBL2 genotypes did not associate with either P-CAP or bacteraemic P-CAP in the case-control study. The MBL-deficient O/O genotype was significantly associated with higher risk of IPD in a meta-analysis, whereas the other MBL-deficient genotype (XA/O) showed a trend towards a protective role. We showed the existence of LD between MBL2 and SP genes. The data do not support a role of MBL deficiency on susceptibility to P-CAP or to IPD. LD among MBL2 and SP genes must be considered in studies on the role of MBL in infectious diseases.

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

4.6
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