4.4 Article

Role of Mucin Lewis Status in Resistance to Helicobacter pylori Infection in Pediatric Patients

期刊

HELICOBACTER
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 251-258

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2010.00765.x

关键词

mucins; Helicobacter pylori; carbohydrate antigens; pediatric; gastritis; peptic ulcer

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. National Institutes of Health [CA82312]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Helicobacter pylori causes gastritis, peptic ulcer and is a risk factor for adenocarcinoma and lymphoma of the stomach. Gastric mucins, carrying highly diverse carbohydrate structures, present functional binding sites for H. pylori and may play a role in pathogenesis. However, little information is available regarding gastric mucin in children with and without stomach diseases. Materials and Methods: Expression of mucins and glycosylation was studied by immunohistochemistry on gastric biopsies from 51 children with and without H. pylori infection and/or peptic ulcer disease. Results: In all children, MUC5AC was present in the surface epithelium and MUC6 in the glands. No MUC6 in the surface epithelium or MUC2 was detected in any section. The Leb and Lea blood group antigens were present in the surface epithelium of 80% and 29% of children, respectively. H. pylori load was higher in Leb negative children than in Leb positive individuals (mean +/- SEM 17.8 +/- 3.5 vs 10.8 +/- 1.5; p < 0.05), but there was no correlation between Lea or Leb status and gastritis, nodularity, and gastric or duodenal ulcer (DU). Expression of sialyl-Lex was associated with H. pylori infection, and DU. Conclusions: Mucin expression and glycosylation is similar in children and adults. However, in contrast to adults, pediatric H. pylori infection is not accompanied by aberrant expression of MUC6 or MUC2. Furthermore, the lower H. pylori density in Leb positive children indicates that H. pylori is suppressed in the presence of gastric mucins decorated with Leb, the binding site of the H. pylori BabA adhesin.

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

4.4
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