4.7 Article

Locally Produced IL-10 Limits Cutaneous Vaccinia Virus Spread

期刊

PLOS PATHOGENS
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005493

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, NIAID

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Skin infection with the poxvirus vaccinia (VV) elicits a powerful, inflammatory cellular response that clears virus infection in a coordinated, spatially organized manner. Given the high concentration of pro-inflammatory effectors at areas of viral infection, it is unclear how tissue pathology is limited while virus-infected cells are being eliminated. To better understand the spatial dynamics of the anti-inflammatory response to a cutaneous viral infection, we first screened cytokine mRNA expression levels after epicutaneous (ec.) VV infection and found a large increase the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10. Ex vivo analyses revealed that T cells in the skin were the primary IL-10-producing cells. To understand the distribution of IL-10-producing T cells in vivo, we performed multiphoton intravital microscopy (MPM) of VV-infected mice, assessing the location and dynamic behavior of IL-10 producing cells. Although virus-specific T cells were distributed throughout areas of the inflamed skin lacking overt virus-infection, IL-10(+) cells closely associated with large keratinocytic foci of virus replication where they exhibited similar motility patterns to bulk antigen-specific CD8(+) T cells. Paradoxically, neutralizing secreted IL-10 in vivo with an anti-IL-10 antibody increased viral lesion size and viral replication. Additional analyses demonstrated that IL-10 antibody administration decreased recruitment of CCR2(+) inflammatory monocytes, which were important for reducing viral burden in the infected skin. Based upon these findings, we conclude that spatially concentrated IL-10 production limits cutaneous viral replication and dissemination, likely through modulation of the innate immune repertoire at the site of viral growth.

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

4.7
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