| Literature DB >> 26828330 |
Jamie C DeWitt1, Dori R Germolec2, Robert W Luebke3, Victor J Johnson4.
Abstract
This overview is an update of the unit originally published in 2004. While the basic tenets of immunotoxicity have not changed in the past 10 years, several publications have explored the application of immunotoxicological data to the risk assessment process. Therefore, the goal of this unit is still to highlight relationships between xenobiotic-induced immunosuppression and risk of clinical diseases progression. In immunotoxicology, this may require development of models to equate moderate changes in markers of immune functions to potential changes in incidence or severity of infectious diseases. For most xenobiotics, exposure levels and disease incidence data are rarely available, and safe exposure levels must be estimated based on observations from experimental models or human biomarker studies. Thus, it is important to establish a scientifically sound framework that allows accurate and quantitative interpretation of experimental or biomarker data in the risk assessment process.Entities:
Keywords: immunosuppression; immunotoxicity; xenobiotic exposure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26828330 PMCID: PMC4780336 DOI: 10.1002/0471140856.tx1801s67
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Protoc Toxicol ISSN: 1934-9254
Figure 1Changes in the onset, course, and outcome of infectious disease. Schematic shows factors that may influence infectious disease susceptibility.
Figure 2The association between psychological stress and reported symptoms of upper respiratory illness following infection with an influenza A virus. Adapted from Cohen et al. (1999).
Figure 3Pneumococcal vaccine responses in elderly caregivers, shown as antibody titer over the 6‐month period following immunization. Controls are age‐matched noncaregivers. Adapted from Glaser et al. (2000) with permission.
Figure 4Timeline of infections after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). With the exception of bacterial infections, prophylaxis is typically given for high risk infections. Adapted from O'Shea and Humar, 2013.
Distribution of Lymphocyte Subtypes in the Fetus, Newborn, and Adulta, b
| Fetus | Neonate | Adult | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of | % of | % of | % of | |||||||
| Marker | adult | Percent | Absolute | adult | Percent | adult | Absolute | adult | Percent | Absolute |
| WBC | — | — | 5154 | 89.6 | — | — | 13,426 | 234.1 | — | 5750 |
| Lymphocytes | — | — | 3700 | 180.3 | — | — | 4263 | 207.7 | — | 2052 |
| CD2+ | 69.5 |
| 1936 | 120.5 | 12 | 87.8 | 2971 | 185.0 | 82 | 1606 |
| CD3+ | 67.5 | 52 | 1771 | 127.3 | 61 | 79.2 | 2579 | 185.4 | 77 | 1391 |
| CD4+ | 78.0 | 39 | 1321 | 136.6 | 45 | 90.0 | 1897 | 196.2 | 50 | 967 |
| CD8+ | 62.5 | 15 | 499 | 107.3 | 18 | 75.0 | 874 | 188.0 | 24 | 465 |
| CD4:CD8 ratio | — | — | 2.9 | 138.1 | — | — | 2.3 | 109.5 | — | 2.1 |
| CD19 (B cells) | 138.5 | 18 | 547 | 225.1 | 11 | 84.6 | 429 | 176.5 | 13 | 243 |
Adapted from Schultz et al. (2000).
Dashes indicate not applicable.
Absolute values are given per cubic millimeter.
Significantly different from adults.
Significantly different from neonates.
Effects of Aging on the Distribution of Lymphocyte Subtypesa
| Young elderly (65‐85) | Old elderly (>90) | Young adults (25‐35) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of | % of | ||||
| young | young | ||||
| Marker | Absolute | adult | Absolute | adult | Absolute |
| Lymphocytes | 1980 ± 620 | 89.6 | 1830 ± 680 | 82.8 | 2210 ± 470 |
| CD2+ | 1730±410 | 87.4 | 1605 ±47 | 81.1 | 1980 ± 310 |
| CD3+ | 1510 ± 320 | 81.6 | 1360 ± 380 | 73.5 | 1850 ± 280 |
| CD4+ | 1115 ± 260 | 89.6 | 1084 ± 290 | 87.1 | 1245 ± 190 |
| CD8+ | 460 ± 190 | 68.7 | 405 ± 220 | 60.5 | 670 ± 145 |
| CD4+:CD8+ ratio | 2.42 | 130.8 | 2.68 | 144.9 | 1.85 |
| CD45RA (naive) | 560 ± 180 | 45.5 | 380 ± 200 | 30.9 | 1230 ± 340 |
| CD45RO (memory) | 1090 ± 420 | 143.4 | 1125 ± 470 | 148.0 | 760 ± 235 |
| CD57 (NK) | 390 ± 180 | 185.7 | 430 ± 205 | 204.7 | 210 ± 135 |
Adapted from Lesourd (1999).
Absolute values are per cubic millimeter.
Significantly different from young adults.
Significantly different from young elderly.
Commonly Employed Experimental Disease Resistance Modelsa
| Challenge agent | Primary immunotoxicological endpoint(s) evaluated |
|---|---|
| Influenza virus | Viral clearance |
|
| Morbidity |
|
| Liver and spleen macrophages and neutrophils |
|
| Clearance or mortality |
| B16F10 or PYB6 tumor model | Tumor resistance |
|
| Parasite numbers |
|
| Bacterial clearance |
| Cytomegalovirus | Reactivation of latent viral disease |
Adapted from Burleson and Burleson (2010).