4.6 Article

Expression of Genes Related to Anti-Inflammatory Pathways Are Modified Among Farmers' Children

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091097

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [QLRT 1999-013]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [2-100324]
  3. Christine Kuhne - Center for Allergy Research and Education (CK-Care) in Davos

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The hygiene hypothesis states that children exposed to higher loads of microbes such as farmers' children suffer less from allergies later in life. Several immunological mechanisms underpinning the hygiene hypothesis have been proposed such as a shift in T helper cell balance, T regulatory cell activity, or immune regulatory mechanisms induced by the innate immunity. Objective: To investigate whether the proposed immunological mechanisms for the hygiene hypotheses are found in farmers' children. Methods: We assessed gene expression levels of 64 essential markers of the innate and adaptive immunity by quantitative real-time PCR in white blood cells in 316 Swiss children of the PARSIFAL study to compare farmers' to non-farmers' expressions and to associate them to the prevalence of asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis, total and allergen-specific IgE in serum, and expression of Ce germ-line transcripts. Results: We found enhanced expression of genes of the innate immunity such as IRAK-4 and RIPK1 and enhanced expression of regulatory molecules such as IL-10, TGF-beta, SOCS4, and IRAK-2 in farmers' children. Furthermore, farmers' children expressed less of the T(H)1 associated cytokine IFN-gamma while T(H)2 associated transcription factor GATA3 was enhanced. No significant associations between the assessed immunological markers and allergic diseases or sensitization to allergens were observed. Conclusion: Farmers' children express multiple increased innate immune response and immune regulatory molecules, which may contribute to the mechanisms of action of the hygiene hypothesis.

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