↓ Skip to main content

Development of real-time PCR assays for evaluation of immune response and parasite load in golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) infected by Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of real-time PCR assays for evaluation of immune response and parasite load in golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) infected by Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1647-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel Peralva Ribeiro-Romão, Andrea Franco Saavedra, Alda Maria Da-Cruz, Eduardo Fonseca Pinto, Otacilio C. Moreira

Abstract

Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a neglected disease with a broad spectrum of clinical manifestations, ranging from small cutaneous nodules to severe mucosal tissue destruction. Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis is the main species attributed to CL in the Americas. However, studies of experimental infection are limited in the murine model due to the self-resolutive pattern of the disease. Previously, our group demonstrated that the hamster model reproduces many of the clinical and histopathological features observed in humans. Herein, we standardized a RT-qPCR gene expression assay to evaluate a panel of immunological markers and a qPCR assay in order to quantify with high sensitivity and reproducibility the parasite load in skin lesions. Hamsters were intradermally infected in the footpad with 10(5) promastigotes of L. (V.) braziliensis and 110 days post-infection skin lesions and popliteal lymph nodes were removed for RNA and DNA extraction, both from the same tissue fragment. Gene expression of IFN-ɣ, IL-10, TGF-β TNF, IL-4, IL-6, iNOS and arginase were measured using non-infected animal tissue as a calibrator. Parasite load was quantified from DNA extracted from lesions by qPCR targeting Leishmania kDNA and normalized by hamster GAPDH, using a SYBR Green-based absolute quantification methodology. A relative quantification RT-qPCR assay was standardized for the evaluation of mRNA levels from skin and lymph node samples of golden hamsters, with PCR efficiencies ranging from 92.3 to 116.4 %. In uninfected animals, higher basal mRNA levels in lymph nodes were observed for IFN-ɣ, TGF-β, TNF and IL-4 (111.4 ± 92.2; 5.6 ± 1.2; 5.3 ± 1.7; and 60.3 ± 26.8, respectively) in comparison to skin. In golden hamsters infected with L. (V.) braziliensis, an increase in the expression of all immunological markers evaluated was observed, ranging from 2.7 ± 0.2 for TGF-β to 1018.5 ± 809.0 for iNOS in skin lesions, and 2.4 ± 1.6 for TGF-β to 600.2 ± 666.4 for iNOS in popliteal lymph nodes. Interestingly, significantly higher levels of IFN-ɣ, TNF and IL-10 mRNA were observed in skin in comparison to lymph nodes, while a lower significant level of arginase mRNA was observed in skin. In parallel, parasite loads were quantified by qPCR from the skin lesions of infected animals, ranging from 27.0 to 6647.0, with a median of 553.4 (416.7-1504.0) parasites/mg skin equivalents, whereas lesion size varied from 0.3 to 3.1 mm. Despite the tendency of larger lesions to present higher parasite load, the correlation observed was not statistically significant. In this study, we describe for the first time a sensitive, reproducible and cheaper molecular assay to quantify from the same tissue fragment the gene expression of immunological markers and the parasite load in skin lesions, observing a mixed profile of immune response in the hamster model infected by L. (V.) braziliensis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 23 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 26 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,464,797
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#4,236
of 5,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,417
of 352,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#130
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,474 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.