4.4 Article

Protection from Clostridium difficile Infection in CD4 T Cell- and Polymeric Immunoglobulin Receptor-Deficient Mice

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 82, 期 2, 页码 522-531

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.01273-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI50260]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clostridium difficile rivals methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as the primary hospital-acquired infection. C. difficile infection (CDI) caused by toxins A and/or B can manifest as mild diarrhea to life-threatening pseudomembranous colitis. Although most patients recover fully from CDI, similar to 20% undergo recurrent disease. Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between anti-toxin antibody (Ab) and decreased recurrence; however, the contributions of the systemic and mucosal Ab responses remain unclear. Our goal was to use the CDI mouse model to characterize the protective immune response to C. difficile. C57BL/6 mice infected with epidemic C. difficile strain BI17 developed protective immunity against CDI and did not develop CDI upon rechallenge; they generated systemic IgG and IgA as well as mucosal IgA Ab to toxin. To determine if protective immunity to C. difficile could be generated in immunodeficient individuals, we infected CD4(-/-) mice and found that they generated both mucosal and serum IgA anti-toxin Abs and were protected from CDI upon rechallenge, with protection dependent on major histocompatibility complex class II (MHCII) expression; no IgG anti-toxin Ab was found. We found that protection was likely due to neutralizing mucosal IgA Ab. In contrast, pIgR(-/-) mice, which lack the receptor to transcytose polymeric Ab across the epithelium, were also protected from CDI, suggesting that although mucosal anti-toxin Ab may contribute to protection, it is not required. We conclude that protection from CDI can occur by several mechanisms and that the mechanism of protection is determined by the state of immunocompetence of the host.

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