4.7 Article

Immunolocalization and Distribution of Rubella Antigen in Fatal Congenital Rubella Syndrome

Journal

EBIOMEDICINE
Volume 3, Issue -, Pages 86-92

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.11.050

Keywords

Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS); CRS pathology; Immunohistochemistry; Fatal cases; Autopsy

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: An estimated 100,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) occur worldwide each year. The reported mortality rate for infants with CRS is up to 33%. The cellular mechanisms responsible for the multiple congenital defects in CRS are presently unknown. Here we identify cell types positive for rubella virus (RV) in CRS infants. Methods: Cells and organs involved in RV replication were identified in paraffin-embedded autopsy tissues from three fatal case-patients by histopathologic examination and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining using a rabbit polyclonal RV antibody. Normal rabbit antisera and RV antisera preabsorbed with highly purified RV served as negative controls. Results: RV antigen was found in interstitial fibroblasts in the heart, adventitial fibroblasts of large blood vessels, alveolar macrophages, progenitor cells of the outer granular layer of the brain, and in capillary endothelium and basal plate in the placenta. The antibody specificity was verified by IHC staining of multiple tissue sections from other infectious disease cases. RV infection of each cell type is consistent with abnormalities which have been identified in patients with CRS, in the heart, large blood vessels, and brain. Antigen distribution was consistent with inflammatory response to vascular injury and systemic spread of RV. Conclusions: The identification of RV positive cell types in CRS is important to better understand the pathology and pathogenesis of CRS. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available