1997
DOI: 10.1007/bf01740826
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Serum rantes levels in HIV-positive individuals and in HIV-negative exposed health-care workers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…No significant difference in serum levels of MIP-1␣, MIP-1␤, and RANTES has been found among the 4 clinical stages of HIV-1 infection for both HAARTnaïve and salvage groups (P Ͼ .05; Fig 1), suggesting that serum levels of CC-chemokines did not play a major role in the control of disease stage. Our results were consistent with those of several investigations 24,25,38 implying that variations in serum levels of these CC-chemokines did not explain variations in the natural history of HIV-1 infection. Therefore, we and other investigators excluded serum CC-chemokine levels as biomarkers of HIV-1 disease stage.…”
Section: Cc-chemokine Levels In Relation To Hiv-1 Disease Sta-supporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…No significant difference in serum levels of MIP-1␣, MIP-1␤, and RANTES has been found among the 4 clinical stages of HIV-1 infection for both HAARTnaïve and salvage groups (P Ͼ .05; Fig 1), suggesting that serum levels of CC-chemokines did not play a major role in the control of disease stage. Our results were consistent with those of several investigations 24,25,38 implying that variations in serum levels of these CC-chemokines did not explain variations in the natural history of HIV-1 infection. Therefore, we and other investigators excluded serum CC-chemokine levels as biomarkers of HIV-1 disease stage.…”
Section: Cc-chemokine Levels In Relation To Hiv-1 Disease Sta-supporting
confidence: 93%
“…This role is expected to be complicated; CC-chemokines have dichotomous effects on HIV-1 (eg, inhibition of viral entry vs enhancement of viral replication and induction of in- flammatory response). A significant number of investigations measuring CC-chemokine production by PB-MCs or purified CD4 ϩ and CD8 ϩ lymphocytes from HIV-1-infected individuals or serum CC-chemokines have not shown an inverse correlation between CC-chemokine levels and disease progression, 24,25,38,42 yet in other investigations such inverse correlations have been noted. 22,[43][44][45] We detected serum levels of MIP-1␣, MIP-1␤, and RANTES in 60 HIV-1-infected patients who were re- cruited to our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 As in similar investigations, 3,4 this finding suggests that these b-chemokines are the major protective factors against HIV infection. Because many genes and protein factors have been reported to affect the pathogenesis of HIV, 5,6 it was our goal to investigate other possible mechanisms in addition to b-chemokines that protected the HIV-uninfected cohort from viral infection.…”
mentioning
confidence: 52%
“…Relevant factors include the role of cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CD8 + ) response [10,48,55,88,97], T helper (CD4 + ) cell response [1,36,49,97], neutralization sensitivity, and the contribution of relevant chemokines (e.g., MIP-1 , MIP-1 , RANTES, SDF-1) [16,27,95,106,112] and cytokines (e.g., TNF-). HIV vaccine research depends on understanding the immunologic response to infection, and discordant couples enable a better understanding of the typical response, as well as the response of individuals who remain uninfected after repeated viral exposure.…”
Section: Genetic and Immunologic Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%