4.2 Article

Thymic plasmacytoid dendritic cells are susceptible to productive HIV-1 infection and efficiently transfer R5 HIV-1 to thymocytes in vitro

期刊

RETROVIROLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1742-4690-8-43

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Heath and Medical Research Council [358399, 510488]
  2. Practitioner Fellowship
  3. Alfred Foundation
  4. Monash University
  5. National Institute of Health [AI073255, AI057066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: HIV-1 infection of the thymus contributes to the defective regeneration and loss of CD4(+) T cells in HIV-1-infected individuals. As thymic dendritic cells (DC) are permissive to infection by HIV-1, we examined the ability of thymic DC to enhance infection of thymocytes which may contribute to the overall depletion of CD4(+) T cells. We compared productive infection in isolated human thymic and blood CD11c(+) myeloid DC (mDC) and CD123(+) plasmacytoid DC (pDC) using enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) CCR5 (R5)-tropic NL(AD8) and CXCR4 (X4)-tropic NL4-3 HIV-1 reporter viruses. Transfer of productive HIV-1 infection from thymic mDC and pDC was determined by culturing these DC subsets either alone or with sorted thymocytes. Results: Productive infection was observed in both thymic pDC and mDC following exposure to R5 HIV-1 and X4 HIV-1. Thymic pDC were more frequently productively infected by both R5 and X4 HIV-1 than thymic mDC (p = 0.03; n = 6). Thymic pDC efficiently transferred productive R5 HIV-1 infection to both CD3(hi) (p = 0.01; mean fold increase of 6.5; n = 6) and CD3(lo) thymocytes (mean fold increase of 1.6; n = 2). In comparison, transfer of productive infection by thymic mDC was not observed for either X4 or R5 HIV-1. Conclusions: The capacity of thymic pDC to efficiently transfer R5 HIV-1 to both mature and immature thymocytes that are otherwise refractory to R5 virus may represent a pathway to early infection and impaired production of thymocytes and CD4(+) T cells in HIV-1-infected individuals.

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

4.2
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