Tolerance of infections.

Division of Immunology and Pathogenesis, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.
Annual Review of Immunology (Impact Factor: 41.39). 03/2011; 30:271-94. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-020711-075030
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A host has two methods to defend against pathogens: It can clear the pathogens or reduce their impact on health in other ways. The first, resistance, is well studied. Study of the second, which ecologists call tolerance, is in its infancy. Tolerance measures the dose response curve of a host's health in reaction to a pathogen and can be studied in a simple quantitative manner. Such studies hold promise because they point to methods of treating infections that put evolutionary pressures on microbes different from antibiotics and vaccines. Studies of tolerance will provide an improved foundation to describe our interactions with all microbes: pathogenic, commensal, and mutualistic. One obvious mechanism affecting tolerance is the intensity of an immune response; an overly exuberant immune response can cause collateral damage through immune effectors and because of the energy allocated away from other physiological functions. There are potentially many other tolerance mechanisms, and here we systematically describe tolerance using a variety of animal systems.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early sensing of pathogenic bacteria by the host immune system is important to develop effective mechanisms to kill the invader. Microbial recognition, activation of signaling pathways, and effector mechanisms are sequential events that must be highly controlled to successfully eliminate the pathogen. Host recognizes pathogens through pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs) that sense pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). Some of these PRRs include Toll-like receptors (TLRs), nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptors (NLRs), retinoic acid-inducible gene-I- (RIG-I-) like receptors (RLRs), and C-type lectin receptors (CLRs). TLRs and NLRs are PRRs that play a key role in recognition of extracellular and intracellular bacteria and control the inflammatory response. The activation of TLRs and NLRs by their respective ligands activates downstream signaling pathways that converge on activation of transcription factors, such as nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-κB), activator protein-1 (AP-1) or interferon regulatory factors (IRFs), leading to expression of inflammatory cytokines and antimicrobial molecules. The goal of this review is to discuss how the TLRs and NRLs signaling pathways collaborate in a cooperative or synergistic manner to counteract the infectious agents. A deep knowledge of the biochemical events initiated by each of these receptors will undoubtedly have a high impact in the design of more effective strategies to control inflammation.
    Mediators of Inflammation 12/2014; 2014:432785. DOI:10.1155/2014/432785 · 2.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Milk losses associated with mastitis can be attributed to either effects of pathogens per se (i.e., direct losses) or effects of the immune response triggered by intramammary infection (indirect losses). The distinction is important in terms of mastitis prevention and treatment. Regardless, the number of pathogens is often unknown (particularly in field studies), making it difficult to estimate direct losses, whereas indirect losses can be approximated by measuring the association between increased somatic cell count (SCC) and milk production. An alternative is to perform a mediation analysis in which changes in milk yield are allocated into their direct and indirect components. We applied this method on data for clinical mastitis, milk and SCC test-day recordings, results of bacteriological cultures (Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, and streptococci other than Strep. dysgalactiae and Strep. uberis), and cow characteristics. Following a diagnosis of clinical mastitis, the cow was treated and changes (increase or decrease) in milk production before and after a diagnosis were interpreted counterfactually. On a daily basis, indirect changes, mediated by SCC increase, were significantly different from zero for all bacterial species, with a milk yield decrease (ranging among species from 4 to 33g and mediated by an increase of 1000SCC/mL/day) before and a daily milk increase (ranging among species from 2 to 12g and mediated by a decrease of 1000SCC/mL/day) after detection. Direct changes, not mediated by SCC, were only different from zero for coagulase-negative staphylococci before diagnosis (72g per day). We concluded that mixed structural equation models were useful to estimate direct and indirect effects of the presence of clinical mastitis on milk yield. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Preventive Veterinary Medicine 01/2015; 118(4). DOI:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.01.009 · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relationship between the manifestations of tolerance (a host’s ability to reduce the impact of a given level of pathogens) and resistance (a host’s ability to clear pathogens) has been assumed to be an antagonistic one. Here we tested the hypothesis that mice from strains more resistant to intestinal nematodes will experience reduced tolerance compared with less resistant mice. Three inbred strains of mice were used: C57BL/6 mice have been characterised as susceptible, whereas BALB/c and NIH mice have been characterised as resistant to Heligmosomoides bakeri infection. Mice of each strain were either parasitised with a single dose of 250 L3 H. bakeri (n = 10) in water or were sham-infected with water (n = 10). Body weight, food intake and worm egg output were recorded regularly throughout the experiment. Forty-two days p.i. mice were euthanised and organ weights, eggs in colon and worm counts were determined. C57BL/6 mice showed significantly greater worm egg output (P < 0.001), eggs in colon (P < 0.05) and female worm fecundity (P < 0.05) compared with NIH and BALB/c mice. Parasitised BALB/c mice grew more whilst parasitised C57BL/6 mice grew less than their sham-infected counterparts during the first 2 weeks post-challenge (P = 0.05). Parasitism significantly increased liver, spleen, small intestine and caecum weights (P < 0.001) but reduced carcass weight (P < 0.01). Average daily weight gain and worm numbers were positively correlated in NIH mice (P = 0.05); however, the relationship was reversed when carcass weight was used as a measure for tolerance. BALB/c mice did not appear to suffer from the consequences of parasitism, with carcass weight similar in all animals. Our hypothesis that strains more resistant to the H. bakeri infection are less tolerant compared with less resistant strains is rejected, as the two resistant strains showed variable tolerance. Thus, tolerance and resistance to an intestinal nematode infection are not always mutually exclusive.
    International Journal for Parasitology 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ijpara.2014.12.005 · 3.40 Impact Factor