| Literature DB >> 35746555 |
Ana García-Castro1, Adriana Egui1, María Carmen Thomas1, Manuel Carlos López1.
Abstract
Visceral leishmaniasis is one of the deadliest parasitic diseases in the world and affects both humans and dogs. The host immune response to Leishmania infection plays a critical role in the evolution of canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) and consequently in the manifestation of clinical signs. The asymptomatic form of the disease is a major concern in the diagnosis of CVL and in the transmission control of Leishmania infection. Asymptomatic dogs are found in large proportions in endemic areas and are an unquantifiable source of infection. The present review analyzes the possible relationship between the activation of the antigen-specific immune response of the host and resistance or susceptibility to CVL. The review focuses on works that address the characterization of the humoral and cellular immune response profile, at both the functional and phenotypic levels, in infected dogs. Most studies relate the absence of clinical symptomatology to an increased proliferative response and a Th1 cytokine profile. Despite the numerous findings pointing to a differential immune response in asymptomatic dogs, the contradictory results reported in this review highlight the importance of establishing a precise clinical classification of the disease, performing more longitudinal studies, and including a higher number of animals in trials.Entities:
Keywords: Th1/Th2 response; asymptomatic disease; canine visceral leishmaniasis; humoral response; immune biomarkers; immune response; lymphoproliferative response
Year: 2022 PMID: 35746555 PMCID: PMC9229064 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10060947
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccines (Basel) ISSN: 2076-393X
Figure 1Flow diagram showing the steps followed to select the articles included in this review.
Studies that analyzed the immune profiles of PBMCs from infected and control dogs.
| Cell Type Analyzed | Common Markers Studied | Additional Markers Studied | Clinical Classification (Number of Dogs | Geographical Location | Type of Infection | Methods | Main Findings | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| CD3/CD5, CD4, CD8 | Foxp3 | AD ( | Campania region (Italy) | Natural | IFA and FC with mAb | No differences between AD and SD for any marker. | [ |
| MHC-II | AD ( | Unknown | Natural | FC | ↓ CD3+ T cells in SD | [ | ||
| CD21, MHC-II, CD45RA, CD45RB | AD ( | Belo Horizonte (Brazil) | Natural | FC with mAb | ↑ CD5+, CD4+ and CD8+ cells in AD | [ | ||
| CD21 | AD ( | France | Natural | FC with mAb | ↓ CD5+, CD4+, CD8+ and CD21+ cells in SD | [ | ||
| AD-I ( | Belo Horizonte (Brazil) | Natural | FC with mAb | ↑ CD5+ and CD4+ cells in AD-I and AD-II | [ | |||
| AD-I ( | Belo Horizonte (Brazil) | Natural | FC with mAb | ↓ CD5+, CD4+, CD8+ and CD21+ cells in AD-II and SD | [ | |||
|
| CD4, CD8 | - | AD ( | Virginia (USA) | Experimental | FC with mAb | Similar numbers of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells between groups. | [ |
| AD ( | Atenas (Greece) | Natural | FC with mAb | ↑ CD4+ T cells in AD and CD | [ | |||
|
| CD19, CD21, IgD, IgM | - | AD ( | USA and Natal (Brazil) | Natural | FC and FACS | Similar % CD19+ and CD21+ cells between groups. | [ |
IFA: immunofluorescence assay; FC: flow cytometry; FACS: fluorescence-activated cell sorting; PBMCs: peripheral blood mononuclear cells; mAb: monoclonal antibodies; AD: asymptomatic dogs; AD-I; asymptomatic dogs with negative serology; AD-II: asymptomatic dogs with positive serology; OD: oligosymptomatic dogs; SD: symptomatic dogs; TSD: treated symptomatic dogs; TD: treated infected dogs; CD: control healthy dogs; Treg: T regulatory cells. p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***), and p < 0.0001 (****).
Figure 2Graphical representation of the percentage of dogs who exhibited positive lymphoproliferative response to SLA. In this figure, all studies that specified the number of dogs who gave a positive proliferative response have been included. PR: proliferative response; SLA: soluble Leishmania antigen.