Kusunoki, Y., Yamaoka, M., Kasagi, F., Hayashi, T., Koyama, K., Kodama, K., MacPhee, D. G. and Kyoizumi, S. T Cells of Atomic Bomb Survivors Respond Poorly to Stimulation by Staphylococcus aureus Toxins In Vitro: Does This Stem from their Peripheral Lymphocyte Populations Having a Diminished Naïve CD4 T-Cell Content? Radiat. Res. 158, 715–724 (2002).We found previously that the peripheral CD4 T-cell populations of heavily exposed A-bomb survivors contained fewer naïve T cells than we detected in the corresponding unexposed controls. To determine whether this demonstrable impairment of the CD4 T-cell immunity of A-bomb survivors was likely to affect the responsiveness of their immune systems to infection by common pathogens, we tested the T cells of 723 survivors for their ability to proliferate in vitro after a challenge by each of the Staphylococcus aureus toxins SEB, SEC-2, SEC-3, SEE and TSST-1. The results presented here reveal that the proliferative responses of T cells of A-bomb survivors became progressively weaker as the radiation dose increased and did so in a manner that correlated well with the decreasing CD45RA-positive (naïve) [but not CD45RA-negative (memory)] CD4 T-cell percentages that we found in their peripheral blood lymphocyte (PBL) populations. We also noted that the T cells of survivors with a history of myocardial infarction tended to respond poorly to several (or even all) of the S. aureus toxins, and that these same individuals had proportionally fewer CD45RA-positive (naïve) CD4 T cells in their PBL populations than we detected in survivors with no myocardial infarction in their history. Taken together, these results clearly indicate that A-bomb irradiation led to an impairment of the ability of exposed individuals to maintain their naïve T-cell pools. This may explain why A-bomb survivors tend to respond poorly to toxins encoded by the common pathogenic bacterium S. aureus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kusunoki et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: