| Literature DB >> 31873157 |
Zhide Li1,2,3, Chuanshan Zhang3,4, Liang Li3, Xiaojuan Bi3, Liang Li3, Shuting Yang1,3, Ning Zhang1,2, Hui Wang1,3, Ning Yang1,3, Abuduaini Abulizi1,2, Abudusalamu Aini1,2, Renyong Lin3, Dominique A Vuitton6,7, Hao Wen8,9,10.
Abstract
The local immune mechanisms responsible for the establishment and development of Echinococcus granulosus sensu stricto infection in the liver, have been little explored. We developed a suitable experimental model that mimics naturally infected livers using portal injection of protoscoleces. Opposite to Echinococcus multilocularis infection which is dose-dependent, fully mature hydatid cysts can be established in the liver whatever the injection dose; although most of the infection sites were seen at the establishment phase as inflammatory granulomas associated with fibrosis, they never matured into cysts. At the establishment phase, a strong immune response was composed of T and B cells, with T1-type, T2-type cells and cytokines and IL-10-secreting CD8+ T cells in the liver. At the established phase, results suggested a local production of antibodies by B cells, and an involvement of NK and NKT cells. Infection outcome and local immune response in the liver, were different in the mouse models of Echinococcus granulosus sensu stricto and Echinococcus multilocularis respectively; however, only early specificities at the microenvironment level might explain the major differences found between the lesions induced by the two species. Our quantitative experimental model appears fully appropriate to further study this microenvironment and its relationship with each cestode species.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31873157 PMCID: PMC6928226 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-56098-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Hepatic histopathological alterations and granulomatous response in mice during the course of infection. (a) Histopathological alterations of the liver from mice infected with different PSC inocula during the course of infection. H&E staining of liver sections. The original magnification was at 40×, and the corresponding images on the right were magnified at 200×; bars indicate 200 μm or 50 μm in the 40× or in the 200× magnification images, respectively. Red arrow indicates inflammatory cell zone; Blue arrow indicates fibrosis areas. Dashed line marks the border of granuloma around the parasitic lesion in the infected group. ( b) Hepatic granulomatous response to E. granulosus infection with different doses. Liver histological reaction at each infectious foci was scored as (1) inflammatory foci, parasite-free, except for possible PSC remnants, composed of macrophages, lymphocytes, and other inflammatory cells; (2) fibrotic foci, parasite-free, with no visible PSCs or cysts, only composed of fibrosis; (3) inflammatory foci with fibrosis, parasite-free, with no visible PSCs or cysts, only composed of granulomatous inflammation combined with liver fibrosis; (4) infectious foci, cystic structure composed of the germinal layer and laminated layer, surrounded with macrophages, lymphocytes, fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, as well as fibrosis (adventitial layer). All sizes of infectious foci were calculated via microscope examination of the liver including 4–6 mice per group. PSCs: protoscoleces. LD: 50 or 250 PSCs; MD: 500 PSCs; HD: 1000 or 2000 PSCs. Data are shown as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 2Lesion size and inflammatory infiltration in the liver of mice during the course of infection. (a) Liver lesion area determined by microscopic measurement of H&E-stained tissue sections, and expressed as square micrometers (μm2). (b) Total number of hepatic mononuclear cells (MNCs). LD: 50 PSCs; MD: 500 PSCs; HD: 2000 PSCs. Data are shown as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM, 4–6 mice per group), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3Inflammatory cell subsets in the liver of mice infected during the course of infection. (a) Absolute quantification of hepatic CD4 (NK1.1−CD3+CD4+) T cells. (b) Absolute quantification of hepatic CD8 (NK1.1−CD3+CD8+) T cells. (c) Ratio of CD4+ T cells/CD8+ T cells in the liver. (d) Absolute quantification of hepatic NK (NK1.1+CD3−) cells. (e) Absolute quantification of hepatic NKT cells. (f) Absolute quantification of hepatic CD19+ B cells. LD: 50 PSCs; MD: 500 PSCs; HD: 2000PSCs. Data are shown as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM, 4–6 mice per group), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 4Memory T cell phenotypes in the liver of mice during the course of infection. (a) Percentage of effector memory CD4+ T cells (Tem, CD44+CD62L−)/CD4+ T cells in the liver. (b) Percentage of central memory CD8+ T cells (Tcm, CD44+CD62L+)/CD8+ T cells in the liver. (c) Percentage of effector memory CD8+ T cells (Tem, CD44+CD62L−)/CD8+ T cells in the liver. LD: 50 PSCs; MD: 500 PSCs; HD: 2000 PSCs. Data are shown as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM, 4–6 mice per group), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 5Distribution of T cell subsets in the liver of mice during the course of infection. (a) Percentage of CD4+IFN-γ+ T cells (T1-type)/CD4+ T cells in the liver. (b) Percentage of CD4+TNF-α+ T cells (T1-type)/CD4+ T cells in the liver. (c) Percentage of CD8+IFN-γ+ T cells (T1-type)/CD8+ T cells in the liver. (d) Percentage of CD8+ TNF-α+ T cells (T1-type)/CD8+ T cells in the liver. (e) Percentage of CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ T cells (Treg-type)/CD4+ T cells in the liver. (f) Percentage of CD8+IL-10+ T cells (Treg-type)/CD8+ T cells in the liver. (g) Percentage of CD4+IL-4+ T cells (T2-type)/CD4+T cells in the liver. (h) Percentage of CD4+IL-17A+ T cells (T17-type)/CD4+T cells in the liver. (i) Percentage of CD4+IL-10+ T cells (Treg-type)/CD4+T cells in the liver. LD: 50 PSCs; MD: 500 PSCs; HD: 2000 PSCs. Data are shown as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM, 4–6 mice per group),*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.