Differential Recruitment of Dendritic Cells Subsets to Lymph Nodes Correlates with a Protective or Permissive T-Cell Response during Leishmania (Viannia) Braziliensis or Leishmania (Leishmania) Amazonensis Infection.

Leishmania (L.) amazonensis (La) and L. (V.) braziliensis (Lb) are responsible for a large clinical and immunopathological spectrum in human disease; while La may be responsible for anergic disease, Lb infection leads to cellular hypersensitivity. To better understand the dichotomy in the immune response caused by these Leishmania species, we evaluated subsets of dendritic cells (DCs) and T lymphocyte in draining lymph nodes during the course of La and Lb infection in BALB/c mice. Our results demonstrated a high involvement of DCs in La infection, which was characterized by the greater accumulation of Langerhans cells (LCs); conversely, Lb infection led to an increase in dermal DCs (dDCs) throughout the infection. Considering the T lymphocyte response, an increase of effector, activated, and memory CD4(+) T-cells was observed in Lb infection. Interleukin- (IL-) 4- and IL-10-producing CD4(+)and CD8(+) T-cells were present in both La and Lb infection; however, interferon- (IFN-) γ-producing CD4(+)and CD8(+) T-cells were detected only in Lb infection. The results suggest that during Lb infection, the dDCs were the predominant subset of DCs that in turn was associated with the development of Th1 immune response; in contrast La infection was associated with a preferential accumulation of LCs and total blockage of the development of Th1 immune response.

Effects of salivary gland homogenate from wild-caught and laboratory-reared Lutzomyia longipalpis on the evolution and immunomodulation of Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis infection.

We investigated the effects of Lutzomyia longipalpis salivary glands homogenate of wild-caught and laboratory-reared vectors on the lesion evolution and immunomodulation of the infection caused by Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis. To compare the effect of both salivary glands homogenate (SGH), C57BL/6 mice were inoculated subcutaneously into the hind footpads or into the ear dermis with 10(6) promastigotes in the presence or not of SGH from wild-caught and laboratory-colonized sand flies. Comparing SGH groups, the lesion size was lower in mice co-inoculated with wild-caught SGH, as the parasitism and the infiltration of macrophages at the inoculation site. Wild-caught SGH also determined lower production of IL-4 and IL-10 but higher IL-12 levels compared with laboratory-reared SGH. Our findings address a probable bias by using SGH from laboratory-colonized sand flies instead of wild-caught vector SGH in studies concerning saliva effects. A possible mild influence of sand fly saliva in natural infections caused by Leishmania is also speculated, as infection is transmitted by wild and not by laboratory-reared vectors.

Comparative evaluation of the DPP(®) CVL rapid test for canine serodiagnosis in area of visceral leishmaniasis.

We investigated the performance of the DPP(®) canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) rapid test, a novel immunochromatographic assay launched by BioManguinhos (Brazil), which was recently included in the new Brazilian protocol for screening CVL in serological surveys. The present study compared the DPP(®) with the ELISA and IFA produced by BioManguinhos (Brazil) both with L. major-like antigens and with in-house tests using Leishmania infantum chagasi (in-house ELISA and in-house IFA). We analyzed the sera from clinically symptomatic (n=47) and asymptomatic (n=38) infected dogs from an endemic area of CVL, as well as from healthy (n=18) dogs, in addition to the sera of dogs (n=81) infected with other pathogens. The DPP(®) and the in-house ELISA showed a sensitivity of 90.6% and 94.1%, respectively, and specificity of 95.1% and 97.5%, respectively, and both presented cross-reactivity only with the sera of dogs with babesiosis, 44% for the DPP(®) and 22% for the in-house ELISA. The clinical groups were detected equally by the two assays. The ELISA BioManguinhos, IFA BioManguinhos, and in house-IFA showed a good sensitivity, 90.6%, 96.5% and 89.4%, respectively, but very low specificity, 77.8%, 69.1% and 65.8%, respectively, due to the high cross-reactivity with the sera from the animals harboring other pathogens. The in-house ELISA provided the highest accuracy (95.8%), followed by the DPP(®) (92.7%), ELISA BioManguinhos (84.3%), IFA BioManguinhos (83.1%), and in-house IFA (78.0%). The simultaneous use of the DPP(®) and ELISA BioManguinhos reached a sensitivity of 99.1% and 82.1% when used sequentially. In conclusion, the DPP(®) performed well as serological test for CVL, and detected both asymptomatic and symptomatic dogs in equal proportions. Although its sensitivity is not ideal yet, discarding the IFA and including the DPP(®) improved the accuracy of the new Brazilian CVL diagnostic protocol, particularly of detecting truly infected dogs. Moreover, considering the higher specificity of DPP(®) (95.1% vs 77.8%), positive predictive value (95.1% vs 81.1%) and positive likelihood value (18.3% vs 4.1%) in comparison with the ELISA BioManguinhos, the use of DPP(®) as a confirmatory test instead of a screening test is suggested.