Natural reinfection with respiratory syncytial virus does not boost virus-specific T-cell immunity
Natural reinfection with respiratory syncytial virus does not boost virus-specific T-cell immunity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1203/00006450-200209000-00009
复制
发表时间：
2002-09-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Kimpen, JLL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bont, L;Versteegh, J;Kimpen, JLL
为了确定自然再感染期间呼吸道合胞病毒（RSV）特定细胞介导的免疫的作用，我们研究了RSV特异性T细胞反应是否可以防止再感染，并且随后再感染是否会增强病毒特异性记忆。在因RSV支气管炎住院的55名婴儿中，在三个时间点时测量了外周血中RSV特异性淋巴增生性反应：入院时，入院后4周，在第二个冬季后1 Y后1 Y。记忆被定义为刺激指数（SI）> 2。在第二个冬季，在每种流鼻子的情况下都收集了鼻分泌物。如果免疫荧光或PCR为RSV，则可以诊断出重新感染。在原发性RSV感染入院时，在一个儿童中发现了病毒特异性记忆，而4周后44个婴儿（80％）患有记忆。在第二个冬季，在23名婴儿（43％）中发现了RSV的再感染。在第二季之后，发现了20名婴儿（38％）的记忆。第二个冬季季节后，有和没有再感染的婴儿之间没有SI的差异（2.3对2.1）。然而，在初次RSV感染后4周和第二个冬季后的SI测量之间发现了非常显着的相关性（r = 0.40，p = 0.001）。总之，RSV特异性的T细胞响应不能提供防止再感染的保护。此外，再感染并不能增强RSV特异性T细胞增殖。为了解释这两个发现，假设RSV特异性T细胞在重新感染后无法在体内扩展。
To determine the role of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)specific cell-mediated immunity during natural reinfection, we investigated whether RSV-specific T-cell responses protect against reinfection and, subsequently, whether reinfection boosts virus-specific memory. In a cohort of 55 infants who were hospitalized for RSV bronchiolitis, RSV-specific lymphoproliferative responses in the peripheral blood were measured at three time-points: on admission, 4 wk after admission, and 1 y later, after the second winter season. Memory was defined as a stimulation index (SI) >2. During the second winter season, nasal secretions were collected in every case of a runny nose. Reinfection was diagnosed if immunofluorescence or PCR was positive for RSV. Virus-specific memory was found in one child on admission for primary RSV infection, whereas 4 wk later 44 infants (80%) had memory. Reinfection with RSV was found in 23 infants (43%) during the second winter season. After the second season, memory was found in 20 infants (38%). No differences in SI after the second winter season were found between infants with and without reinfection (2.3 versus 2.1). However, a highly significant correlation was found between SI measured 4 wk after primary RSV infection and SI after the second winter season (r = 0.40, p = 0.001). In conclusion, RSV-specific T-cell responses did not provide protection against reinfection. Moreover, reinfection did not boost RSV-specific T-cell proliferation. To explain both findings, it is hypothesized that RSV-specific T cells fail to expand in vivo upon reinfection.