Thus the following has been thought to be involved: auto-immune-mediated mechanisms of uninfected red blood cell destruction, and host genetic factors to explain the differences in individual responses under the same malaria transmission. In this study, the extent of red blood cell (RBC) destruction in different strains of semi-immune mice model at relatively low parasitaemia was studied.
Methodology: To generate semi-immunity, four strains of mice were taken through several cycles of infection and treatment. By means of immunofluorescent assay and ELISA, sera were screened for anti-erythrocyte
auto-antibodies, and their relationship with haematological parameters and parasitaemia in the strains of semi-immune mice was investigated.
Results: Upon challenge with Plasmodium berghei ANKA after generating semi-immune status, different SC79 chemical structure mean percentage haemoglobin (Hb) drop was observed in the mice strains (Balb/c = 47.1%; NZW = 30.05%; C57BL/6 = 28.44%; CBA = 25.1%), which occurred on different days for each strain (for Balb/c, mean period = 13.6 days; for C57BL/6, NZW, and CBA mean period = 10.6, 10.8, 10.9 days respectively). Binding of antibody to white ghost RBCs was observed in sera of the four strains of semi-immune mice by immunofluorescence. Mean percentage Hb drop per parasitaemia was highest in Balb/c (73.6), followed by C57BL/6 (8.6),
selleck inhibitor CBA (6.9) and NZW (4.0), p = 0.0005. Consequently, auto-antibodies level to ghost RBC were correlated with degree of anaemia and were highest in Balb/c, when compared with the other strains, p < 0.001.
Conclusion: The results presented in this study seem to indicate that anti-RBC
auto-antibodies may be involved in the destruction of uninfected RBC in semi-immune mice at THZ1 cell line relatively low parasite burden. Host genetic factors may also influence the outcome of auto-immune mediated destruction of RBC due to the variation in Hb loss per% parasitaemia and differences in antibody titer for each semi-immune mice strain. However, further studies at the molecular level ought to be carried out to confirm this.”
“Transplant recipient patients performing dialysis represent a growing population in the integrated model of renal replacement therapy. This includes both patients with kidney allograft loss and non-renal organ transplant recipients requiring dialysis. Although a number of possible advantages of peritoneal dialysis over haemodialysis could hypothetically favour its choice when starting dialysis, peritoneal dialysis penetration is relatively residual in this population. Questions about its safety and adequacy in these patients can explain this fact. The purpose of this review is to address unfounded fears and document evidence that peritoneal dialysis should be considered a viable and safe choice in patients returning to dialysis. Specific issues that still need further investigation are also discussed.