Why the study?
Enterovirus 71 and coxsackievirus A16 are the main causative agents of hand, foot and mouth disease, but the basis for their wide diversity in pathogenicity remained unclear.
Does infection with Enterovirus 71 compared with Coxsackievirus A16 induce distinct microRNA expression profiles in human diploid cells and different cytokine and adaptive immune responses in neonatal rhesus macaques?
Does infection with Enterovirus 71 compared with Coxsackievirus A16 induce distinct microRNA expression profiles in human diploid cells and different cytokine and adaptive immune responses in neonatal rhesus macaques?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This preclinical study demonstrates that unlike EV71, CA16 infection represses immune-regulatory miRNAs in human fibroblasts and fails to elicit robust cytokine, neutralizing antibody, or IFN-gamma T-cell responses in rhesus macaques, offering a potential mechanism for recurrent CA16 infections.
Background: Enterovirus 71 (EV71) and coxsackievirus A16 are the main causative agents of hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD), but their pathogenicity has been shown to exhibit wide diversity.Methods: To illuminate the diverse pathogenicity of EV71 and CA16, microRNA (miRNA) profiles of human diploid cells infected with these two viruses were analyzed using an eukaryotic miRNA expression array.Results: Unlike EV71, directly stimulating an effective immune response, CA16 infection failed to effectively activate cytokines or the B-/T-cell immune response by repressing the expression of miRNAs.Similarly, the cytokines and antiviral-specific immune responses induced by CA16 infection were lower than those induced by EV71 in rhesus macaques.Individual miRNAs induced by EV71 and CA16 infections modulate the immune-associated target genes and lead to a distinct immune response.Conclusion: Our results provide experimental evidence focused on the miRNAs induced during EV71 and CA16 infection of human fibroblasts, which suggests some meaningful clues for explanation the wide diversity of immune responses induced by the two viruses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2018) studied Enterovirus 71 (EV71) and coxsackievirus A16 (CA16) infection (hand, foot and mouth disease) (n=9). Enterovirus 71 (EV71, subgenotype C4) or Coxsackievirus A16 (CA16, strain G20 subgenotype B) infection vs. Uninfected negative control cells and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) nasal spray in control macaques was evaluated on Differential microRNA expression profiles in human diploid cells at 3 and 6.5 hours post-infection and cytokine/neutralizing antibody/IFN-gamma immune responses in rhesus macaques over 14 days (p=<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: