Premium
Evaluation of the putative role of C‐C chemokines as protective factors of HIV‐1 infection in seronegative hemophiliacs exposed to contaminated hemoderivatives
Author(s) -
Barretina J.,
Blanco J.,
Gutiérrez A.,
Puig L.,
Altisent C.,
Espanol T.,
Caragol I.,
Clotet B.,
Esté J.A.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
transfusion
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.045
H-Index - 132
eISSN - 1537-2995
pISSN - 0041-1132
DOI - 10.1046/j.1537-2995.2000.40040461.x
Subject(s) - chemokine , immunology , cxcr4 , chemokine receptor , biology , ccr3 , cytokine , chemokine receptor ccr5 , virology , inflammation
BACKGROUND: Overproduction of β‐chemokines and genetic variations in chemokine receptors have been correlated with protection against infection by HIV‐1 or slow progression to AIDS in infected individuals. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The protective role of chemokines and their receptors was evaluated in a group of seven uninfected (seronegative) hemophiliacs transfused with hemoderivatives presumably contaminated with HIV‐1. This group was compared to a group of seven infected (seropositive) hemophiliacs and a group of healthy donors (controls). The CD4+ cell count, intracellular cytokine levels, β‐chemokine levels in plasma, β‐chemokine production by PBMNCs, and expression of chemokine receptors CCR5 and CXCR4 in CD4+ cells were evaluated. The occurrence of protective genotypes in CCR5 , CCR2b , and SDF‐1 (stromal cell‐derived factor 1) genes and susceptibility to infection by HIV‐1 were also studied. RESULTS: Significant differences in the production and plasma levels of β‐chemokines among the three groups were not detected. Lower IL‐2 and IFN‐γ production was observed in the uninfected exposed hemophiliacs than in the controls. Genetic analysis of CCR5 , CCR2b , and SDF‐1 showed several polymorphisms associated with resistance in some HIV‐exposed uninfected hemophiliacs. However, these genetic features cannot explain the protection of all exposed hemophiliacs. In fact, only one patient, carrying two copies of CCR5 from which 32 bp was deleted, showed low CCR5 expression and low susceptibility to infection by a CCR5‐using HIV‐1 strain. In contrast, PBMNCs from all other individuals supported infection in vitro by both CCR5‐ and CXCR4‐using HIV‐1 strains. CONCLUSION: It is not possible to assign to β‐chemo‐kines and polymorphisms in chemokine receptors a central role in preventing HIV‐1 infection. Natural protection against HIV‐1 infection is likely to be due to a multiplicity of factors.