40 research outputs found

    CCL5 regulation of mucosal chlamydial immunity and infection

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Following genital chlamydial infection, an early T helper type 1 (Th1)-associated immune response precedes the activation and recruitment of specific Th1 cells bearing distinct chemokine receptors, subsequently leading to the clearance of <it>Chlamydia</it>. We have shown that CCR5, a receptor for CCL5, is crucial for protective chlamydial immunity. Our laboratory and others have also demonstrated that CCL5 deficiencies found in man and animals can increase the susceptibility and progression of infectious diseases by modulating mucosal immunity. These findings suggest the CCR5-CCL5 axis is necessary for optimal chlamydial immunity. We hypothesized CCL5 is required for protective humoral and cellular immunity against <it>Chlamydia</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The present study revealed that CCR5 and CCL5 mRNAs are elevated in the spleen, iliac lymph nodes (ILNs), and genital mucosa following <it>Chlamydia muriduram </it>challenge. Antibody (Ab)-mediated inhibition of CCL5 during genital chlamydial infection suppressed humoral and Th1 > Th2 cellular responses by splenic-, ILN-, and genital mucosa-derived lymphocytes. Antigen (Ag)-specific proliferative responses of CD4<sup>+ </sup>T cells from spleen, ILNs, and genital organs also declined after CCL5 inhibition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The suppression of these responses correlated with delayed clearance of <it>C. muriduram</it>, which indicate chlamydial immunity is mediated by Th1 immune responses driven in part by CCL5. Taken together with other studies, the data show that CCL5 mediates the temporal recruitment and activation of leukocytes to mitigate chlamydial infection through enhancing adaptive mucosal humoral and cellular immunity.</p

    Epistemic justification and epistemic luck

    Get PDF
    Among epistemologists, it is not uncommon to relate various forms of epistemic luck to the vexed debate between internalists and externalists. But there are many internalism/externalism debates in epistemology, and it is not always clear how these debates relate to each other. In the present paper I investigate the relation between epistemic luck and prominent internalist and externalist accounts of epistemic justification. I argue that the dichotomy between internalist and externalist concepts of justification can be characterized in terms of epistemic luck. Whereas externalist theories of justification are incompatible with veritic luck but not with reflective luck, the converse is true for internalist theories of justification. These results are found to explain and cohere with some recent findings from elsewhere in epistemology, and support a surprising picture of justification, on which internalism and externalism are complementary rather than contradictory positions
    corecore