header logo image


Page 53«..1020..52535455..60..»

Archive for the ‘Immune System’ Category

How this common virus evades the immune system – Futurity – Futurity: Research News

Sunday, July 9th, 2017

Scientists now know how respiratory syncytial virus evades the immune system, a discovery that could potentially lead to a vaccine or treatment.

By age two, most children have been infected with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which usually causes only mild cold symptoms. But people with weakened immune systems, including infants and the elderly, can face serious complications, including pneumonia andin some casesdeath.

We solved the structure of a protein that has eluded the field for quite some time, says Daisy Leung, assistant professor of pathology and immunology, and of biochemistry and molecular biophysics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, co-senior author of the study in Nature Microbiology.

Now that we have the structure, were able to see what the protein looks like, which will help us define what it does and how it does it. And that could lead, down the road, to new targets for vaccine or drug development.

Each year in the United States, more than 57,000 children younger under 5 stay in the hospitaldue to RSV infection, and about 14,000 adults older than 65 die from it.

There is no approved vaccine for RSV and treatment is limitedthe antiviral drug ribavirin is used only in the most severe cases because it is expensive and not very effectiveso most people with RSV receive supportive care to make them more comfortable while their bodies fight off the virus.

For people with weakened immune systems, though, fighting RSV can be tough because the virus can fight back. Scientists have long known that a non-structural RSV protein is key to the viruss ability to evade the immune response. However, the structure of that protein, known as NS1, was unknown. Without seeing what the protein looked like, scientists were unable to determine exactly how NS1 interfered with the immune system.

Its an enigmatic protein. Everybody thinks it does many different things, but weve never had a framework to study how and why the protein does what it does, says co-senior author Gaya Amarasinghe, an associate professor of pathology and immunology.

The researchers used X-ray crystallographya technique that involves crystallizing the protein, bouncing X-rays off it, and analyzing the resulting patternsto determine the 3D structure of NS1. Then, in a detailed analysis of the structure, they identified a piece of the protein, known as the alpha 3 helix, which might be critical for suppressing the immune response.

To test their hypothesis, they created different versions of the NS1 protein, some with the alpha 3 helix region intact, and some with it mutated and then tested the functional impact of helix 3 and created a set of viruses containing the original or the mutant NS1 genes, and measured the effect on the immune response when they infected cells with these viruses.

The viruses with the mutated helix region did not suppress the immune response while the ones with the intact helix region did.

One of the surprising things we found was that this protein does not target just one set of genes related to the immune response, but it globally modulates the immune response, says Amarasinghe, also an associate professor of molecular microbiology, and of biochemistry and molecular biophysics.

The findings show that the alpha 3 helix region is necessary for the virus to dial the bodys immune response down. By suppressing the immune response, the virus gives itself a better chance of surviving and multiplying, or in other words, of causing disease.

RSV usually can only cause disease in people whose immune systems are already weak, so a vaccine or treatment that targets the alpha 3 helix to prevent immune suppression may be just what people need to be able to successfully fight off the virus.

Other researchers from Washington University in St. Louis and Georgia State University are coauthors of the study.

Support for the work came from the National Institutes of Health; the Defense Threat Reduction Agency of the Department of Defense; the National Science Foundation; the Childrens Discovery Institute; and the American Heart Association.

Source: Washington University in St. Louis

Read more from the original source:
How this common virus evades the immune system - Futurity - Futurity: Research News

Read More...

UVa researchers working on lung transplants get $8.6M boost – The Daily Progress

Tuesday, July 4th, 2017

Lung transplants are difficult and risky. Only about 20 percent of organ donors have lungs that are usable; just over half of those patients fortunate enough to receive a donation survive through five years.

Researchers at the University of Virginia think they can improve outcomes for lung transplant patients. The university recently received more than $8.6 million in federal grants for a series of projects meant to take on the problem on multiple fronts.

Dr. Irving Kron and Victor Laubach are spearheading research into ex-vivo lung perfusion, or the use of therapy to rehabilitate donor lungs that may be considered unsuitable because of a donors medical conditions or complications during transportation of the organ.

Lungs are especially sensitive, said Laubach, a molecular physiologist at UVa, and the lungs of most multi-organ donors cant be used because they are badly damaged when the brain is deprived of oxygen. By attaching the donor lungs to a ventilator and treating it with drugs to prevent inflammatory injury and infections, doctors can make lungs suitable for transplants.

We are using that platform to treat those lungs to recondition them and improve their chances of becoming transplantable, Laubach said. If we do that, well significantly increase the donor pool.

Researchers at UVa envision the Medical Center becoming a hub for donor lungs that can be treated and made suitable for transplants.

Dr. Christine Lau is leading a trial of the anti-inflammatory drug regadenoson commonly used in stress tests in heart patients on donor lungs. Experiments on animals have shown that when the drug is pumped into lungs prior to a transplant, it reduces the patients inflammatory response one of the main causes of injury in patients.

[A transplant] causes your immune and inflammatory system to be up in arms, Lau said. What this drug does is shuts down those reactions.

Participation in the trial is completely mandatory, Lau said, but she estimates that more than 90 percent of lung transplant patients at UVa would be eligible for it.

Dr. Sasha Krupnicks research focuses on the patients specifically on suppressing the immune cells that attack the transplanted lung that are less harmful than the current approach.

Currently, transplant patients receive a cocktail of drugs that suppress the entire immune system, putting them at higher risk of infection. Krupnick is experimenting with the use of cells or antibodies that focus on the problem actors in a patients immune system.

What weve discovered is that when we transplant an organ, theres a certain cell population that infiltrates the organ and produce nitric oxide, Krupnick said. If harnessed in the right way, they can kill the harmful T cells.

Ideally, patients would receive an injection before the procedure, reducing the need for drug treatments afterward. Most patients would be off the drug regimen 10 days after the transplant, Krupnick said.

UVa researchers also are hoping to prevent the injuries that go undetected immediately after lung transplant surgery. Many patients go one to two years after the procedure before showing signs of reperfusion injuries, which are typically caused by the bodys rejection of the new organ.

The tools surgeons currently have are fairly crude; it comes down to a chest X-ray, Laubach said. This new grant we have is going to enable us to use new imaging probes.

Using SPECT (short for single photon emission tomography) imaging, doctors should be able to detect these problems and intervene more quickly, which could save lives, Laubach said.

Laubachs team also is planning to use imaging to look at the causes of these injuries, and to get a better understanding of why the body so often rejects transplants.

By looking at all phases of the lung transplant process, UVa researchers are hoping they can make it less difficult for surgeons and less risky for patients. It will take a team effort to make that happen, Laubach said.

We have probably one of the best lung transplant research programs in the country, if not the best, he said. The collaborations have allowed this to happen.

Read this article:
UVa researchers working on lung transplants get $8.6M boost - The Daily Progress

Read More...

This Probiotic Beer Boosts The Immune System, Promotes Stomach … – Civilized

Tuesday, July 4th, 2017

The term 'beer belly' has a whole new meaning thanks to researchers at the National University of Singapore (NUS), who have developed a probiotic beer that boosts the immune system and promotes a healthy stomach.

The new invention was a daunting task according to the inventor, who says that hops used in beer createan inhospitable environment for probiotics.

"The health benefits of probiotics are well known. While good bacteria are often present in food that have been fermented, there are currently no beers in the market that contain probiotics. Developing sufficient counts of live probiotics in beer is a challenging feat as beers contain hop acids that prevent the growth and survival of probiotics," said ChanMei Zhi Alcine,the undergraduate researcher at NUS who picked probiotic beer as her final-year project - and claim to a Nobel Prize if beer connoisseurs have their way.

The healthy brew is made with the probiotic strain Lactobacillus paracasei L26, which regulates the immune system and neutralizes toxins as well as viruses. The strain also gives the suds a sharp, tarty flavor.

"For this beer, we used a lactic acid bacterium as a probiotic micro-organism. It will utilize sugars present in the wort to produce sour-tasting lactic acid, resulting in a beer with sharp and tart flavours. The final product, which takes around a month to brew, has an alcohol content of about 3.5 per cent," explained Chan.

Her supervisor - Dr. Liu Shao Quan - added that the project is the perfect marriage of the craft beer movement with health-food trends.

"The general health benefits associated with consuming food and beverages with probiotic strains have driven demand dramatically. In recent years, consumption of craft or specialty beers has gained popularity too. Alcine's invention is placed in a unique position that caters to these two trends. I am confident that the probiotic gut-friendly beer will be well-received by beer drinkers, as they can now enjoy their beers and be healthy."

When those healthy ales hit shelves is up to the researchers, whohave patented probiotic beer to protect their recipe. So it looks like Chain's post-graduate project willbe raking in the dough with her healthy suds.

More here:
This Probiotic Beer Boosts The Immune System, Promotes Stomach ... - Civilized

Read More...

Probiotic Beer Aims to Boost Immune System – Laboratory Equipment

Sunday, July 2nd, 2017

Two researchers from the National University of Singapore have developed a sour beer that is infused with a probiotic strain of bacteria, Lactobacillus paracasei L26.

L. paracasei is known to neutralize toxins and viruses, and help regulate the human immune system. It is already incorporated into a variety of dairy products to help improve gut-health.

Chan Mei Zhi Alcine, a student in the Food Science and Technology Program at NUS said she regularly consumes dairy-based probiotic beverages, and wanted to apply similar techniques to brewing a gut-friendly beer flavor.

The health benefits of probiotics are well known. While good bacteria are often present in foods that have been fermented, there are currently no beers in the market that contain probiotics, said Alcine in a university release.

With the help of Associate Professor Liu Shao Quan, the duo spent nine months perfecting their recipe and ensuring they had the optimal amount of live probiotics in the beer.

They isolated the L. paracasei bacterium from human intestines and grew the probiotic, as well as the yeast, in pure cultures.

The team altered some aspects of the conventional brewing and fermentation processes to successfully create the beer with the live probiotic.

The final result was a sour beer with an alcohol content of 3.5 percent. It takes about a month before it is ready to drink.

For this beer, we used a lactic acid bacterium as a probiotic micro-organism. It will utilize sugars present in the wort to produce sour-tasting lactic acid, resulting in a beer with sharp and tart flavors, said Alcine.

But, as she also explained, developing sufficient counts of live probiotics in beer proved to be challenging because the hop acids in beer prevent probiotics from growing and surviving.

Alcine and Shao Quan have filed for a patent to protect the sour beer recipe. The duo believes they hit a sort of sweet spot in the market according to Shao Quan, food and beverage products containing probiotics have increased in recent years, and a similar trend has been seen with a boost in craft and specialty beer flavors. The sour beer they developed could be an attractive option for consumers in both groups.

But further researcher may be needed to test how effective the live probiotics in the beer are for gut and immune health before they can market it as a gut-friendly beer.

Originally posted here:
Probiotic Beer Aims to Boost Immune System - Laboratory Equipment

Read More...

Mavenclad Reduces MS Relapses by Reseting the Immune System – Multiple Sclerosis News Today

Sunday, July 2nd, 2017

vF >_XT )Y-Ul$J "Uf^?<%'"2J{KD^#2#}u$:;*~0?#P4OE `-3g*?^$SqTQ V49m >jvG6-sTod;&QE4#a,V:!TNdMG^h#MS'?4'{yG,Gxk F4S6kpj|8pb?I=EP8;cMmw49 t+6E.~ghfAwt]HLk&rtb Ryd#v!0d8Ts(+S My@&8-! "Y@!FzQrS#5B/;&s]_~767@[A5>p|,vgI0 $"@alu[^Y7p@JXCDIVRdF6s` cqFaMf|3]EhgNT@l=,79^{a{T)t}ycGp_*{G W#r9T fH |eMCZkG sU/7E`4Ug kIeIrd"5>;.Sc?W"BBv>U zsB?7}?U7^QU?^1|wBA=j/O0T+ [iNGz||.i-U^O7|$@5uQMO' E!WG^PNkGcxIEX_Sk k#ppV~UV~b+5 -L~ZYohW.|UW|;:TR&SueOV `tnhuEV@gR}<}.PW~(?B( U+|AF@92H^aYEA*OkzF7Yr5-*zUm?d7thQfa:=CZ81'5>1}b_ShFl2p 0Tl:1d0{tV{y@k:4c(8%]k(>hp0R w~D#VMrPG9#> `ivvm^_Tg{m0B5NIev{Q@I+c6p/"85/%'_s5s#*;O[RXbcKr.5)8s~Wjo:+|4JwF"Vu`uZ3-^"We'4}yg[OL;2z['%(~Qw5[]`bC9{JO0t !hw l7p-gxmU|euX=01Pfy2oSj?+ L,5t]G(J9zGP <@kLevE7E8[2v2f'qbO"X"Xjv#YOlq-|_4"9Sp>w?mLt(Qu!#a; ^&S!lQ@&ME ,yScD0]?Iym~$IvT# 3U4M83atFNm5I{l@ "teD12}s_`iuy1HP9S:d22Fc^x64I1P*Pv^# /.c*Z~c>o(/lE;r0fmton.~wyJO`o[QwCn`8~':t2@k H,Sq3A|yU6d<`Yb*3I;P6N'O+V{fg][xvvT.k`5]j4wqVT(v_]$lx9mF6No Mc4?|h5,+C#.yp; M,M:;KZ8w.`)94jYpcc(7pg `kHiG0J=y C`BbgY-$a!0X HovUTM2=/ML!l3tu)('u3o<-4[op*+#rv&xC5 Zc)#:z`W5G0q^{ <<0+dTs6aS3*Om@O2|7] zEdjabUz*ws>ty5JrgEB4#c#vEx|at n6!#2oL*7%t1kex=P T4*A.eL%+hp`VylaZl@uV+El^,Ii-6x+C`@P1!h6wtA>W4-6*d3)}jnXZ3.vF=44D'?f?Jo-})u4d2kS,;VsRF PuF[ 8."SH]]2e{x^-Px:;i8ZjGs"*e .eRO8G+JielJ^ ec7Dw3! m~Eob;ee6e8(G,V:b<4}>&7ajO7rm jH:Z"+"d4]=(}*/QR[J[ed|V3Sxn83 Qd*Ec84%#>pm!D{|=mbAh03dnQE,A18Y{%5Qm{ ~*,xt590zK'G"r8,HE&mC(E'+BR$CplcCs'euh^Q RM}o!K.tPP'JO=xz@ezv$b{hih %feesE{gXlY2rSX -mW )0;Ue!-!lm '8d&{#3Y}f924$e-VC"[ QO'wUJI2IbWZ`$+DyOQ2K";cmS1[OUnrJPn;)j~"A v]vXv=cv=]nr34_Mwa."n'o$#)md 5Xwgmt]lVM/wAdd:GZ>uvfetG~JI}R$o<#N.t4>;;%{lld;EQa(Df nSxF 0fI{p@i}&c4/[S+6V{&F@Y5dAV6V a# d/5q=r?P)@.)nd-rt^sR# IdUF kwloPhm s l-2`zp f$x w%W<,>U%B}QtL^:/ ^l;&Z='al?:J;9&o~Gw<|oNGBI#(AJW4O3ehl/uATrf TT!VMKmY}d ,y CoD$kw+Ym>Km`T!" c_cqCayN#Pd_ jp88x_$@Svi|L [AW-;b,G]dc!- TT2> )+{z4I[|f"Pa+(X5q6k!Y74wQ?f!w"|NDM=zjJ9=*m[1$CEE,U3vl!,C{#fw&t+:'TU3zFs/e-+y{EN:.AYr(=lklPDi`UYKx@QHZ|wn9x&x6>YfwAYBz0<+0JylKw*@sah0(P,85C?S.Dm!>`%qlp_bs4C>eXUcZg`79k9(eVP>R D3PsN(VeRb{%{Uq%x`Z,}PPh!/mW)[^B fPQvUul>?)O02hCdiI9<`mfDrE6gT"'u2nG/4^}n*,v$FvE6rueP}^s0: xax"n~_+uw~lywW.w `C`D?1Q3IVfA8w@khTnNA ]cGo6lj+1*dF2 @qmdc6!6Ke9R3

Visit link:
Mavenclad Reduces MS Relapses by Reseting the Immune System - Multiple Sclerosis News Today

Read More...

New insights into why the immune system fails to see cancer – Medical Xpress

Sunday, July 2nd, 2017

June 29, 2017 Killer T cells surround a cancer cell. Credit: NIH

Cancer hides in plain sight of the immune system. The body's natural tumor surveillance programs should be able to detect and attack rogue cancer cells when they arise, and yet when cancer thrives, it does so because these defense systems have failed. A team of investigators led by Niroshana Anandasabapathy, MD, PhD, at Brigham and Women's Hospital have uncovered a critical strategy that some cancers may be using to cloak themselves - they find evidence of this genetic program across 30 human cancers of the peripheral tissue, including melanoma skin cancer. Their results are published June 29 in Cell.

"Our study reveals a new immunotherapy target and provides an evolutionary basis for why the immune system may fail to detect cancers arising in tissues," said corresponding author Anandasabapathy, of BWH's Department of Dermatology. "The genetic program we report on helps the immune system balance itself. Parts of this program prevent the immune system from destroying healthy organs or tissues, but might also leave a blind spot for detecting and fighting cancer."

The authors studied immune mononuclear phagocytes - a group of disparate cells that act as the "Pac man" of the immune system. When these cells detect foreign invaders and dying normal tissues, they devour or engulf their components. These cells then present these components on their surface teach T cells to maintain tolerance to healthy tissues, or to fight infections and pathogens. Despite differences in function, all immune mononuclear phagocytes found in the skin- (a peripheral tissue like lung and gut) share a common set of genetic programming, which is further enhanced when they enter the tissue. This program is conserved in fetal and adult development, and across species. And, the research team reports, is co-opted by multiple human cancers of tissue.

The team finds that this program is prompted by an "instructive cue" from interferon gamma - a molecule that plays a critical role in regulating immunity. The authors find IFN-gamma for mononuclear phagocytes in development but that IFN-gamma and tissue immune signatures are much higher in skin cancer than in healthy skin. Having an immune response measured by IFN-gamma and tissue signatures correlated with improved metastatic melanoma survival outcomes, making these signatures potential biomarkers for cancer survival.

The authors reasoned such a program might contain key molecules that help the immune system reduce inflammation, but that might also leave a blind spot to cancer detection. One of the key genes the researchers detected is suppressor of cytokine signaling 2 (SOCS2). When this gene was turned off in a mouse model, the immune system was able to robustly detect and reject cancer in models of melanoma and thymoma (cancer of the thymus). They also observed improved vaccination responses, and heightened auto-inflammation suggesting this gene normally dampens auto-inflammatory responses and contracts protective immunity.

"Our research suggests that these cancers are co-opting tissue-specific immune development to escape detection, but we see that turning off SOCS2 unmasks them," said Anandasabapathy. "This sheds new light on our understanding of how the immune system is programed to see cancers and also points the way toward new therapeutic targets for treating cancers that have these signatures."

Explore further: Researchers identify key mutation that suppresses the immune system in melanoma

More information: Nirschl CJ et al. "IFN-gamma-dependent tissue immune homeostasis is co-opted in the tumor microenvironment" Cell DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.016

Journal reference: Cell

Provided by: Brigham and Women's Hospital

University of California, Irvine researchers have identified a specific mutation that allows melanoma tumor cells to remain undetected by the immune system. The finding may lead to the development of better immunotherapies ...

Targeting a molecule called B7-H4which blocks T-cells from destroying tumor cellscould lead to the development of new therapies that boost the immune system's ability to fight cancer, according to a review published ...

(HealthDay) -- Growth of the deadly skin cancer melanoma may be triggered by the immune system turning on itself, according to a new study that also identified the mechanism that causes this to happen.

Internal conflict between cell types explains why the immune system struggles to recognize and attack pancreatic cancer. Curbing this infighting has the potential to make treatment more effective, according to a study led ...

Researchers from Mayo Clinic have quantified the numbers of various types of immune cells associated with the risk of developing breast cancer. The findings are published in a study in Clinical Cancer Research.

A new step in cancer immunotherapy: researchers from the Netherlands Cancer Institute and University of Oslo/Oslo University Hospital show that even if one's own immune cells cannot recognize and fight their tumors, someone ...

Cancer hides in plain sight of the immune system. The body's natural tumor surveillance programs should be able to detect and attack rogue cancer cells when they arise, and yet when cancer thrives, it does so because these ...

An immune-related protein deployed between neighboring cells in Drosophila plays an essential role in the cell degradation process known as autophagy, according to new research by Eric H. Baehrecke, PhD, at UMass Medical ...

New findings from mouse models reveal that the type of immune response that helps maintain healthy metabolism in fatty tissues, called type 2 immunity, also drives obesity-induced nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). ...

Investigators at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and international colleagues have discovered a genetic cause and potential treatment strategy for a rare immune disorder called CHAPLE disease. Children with the condition ...

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital immunologists have discovered how immune cells called T cells become "exhausted"unable to do their jobs of attacking invaders such as cancer cells or viruses. The finding is important ...

An enzyme implicated in autoimmune diseases and viral infections also regulates radiation therapy's ability to trigger an immune response against cancer, Weill Cornell Medicine scientists found in a new study. Their discovery ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

See the article here:
New insights into why the immune system fails to see cancer - Medical Xpress

Read More...

Experimental therapy uses immune system to fight breast cancer – FOX 13 News, Tampa Bay

Sunday, July 2nd, 2017

TAMPA (FOX 13) - In 2014, at the age of 41, Barbara Popoli was diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer,or IBC.

"The first doctor that saw me actually went pale and he excused himself from the room," she remembered. "It was already inoperable and it had spread to 20 lymph nodes."

It was a shock since Barbara had never heard of IBC. It began with swelling in her breast and arm.

"And the skin started to get pink and the texture of my skin started to change and instead of feeling smooth like a tomato it started to feel rough and dimply like the outside of an orange," she continued.

Even more dismal were her odds of survival.

"I have never met so many people who have passed so quickly. Anywhere from 60 to 80 percent pass away within just a couple of years after having it," she said.

After a year and a half of traditional treatments including chemo, immunotherapy, and radiation, she joined a clinical trial at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa. The experimental therapy helps restore immune cells that fight the cancer.

"I think this is a big deal for patients because we've identified that there is a deficit in this cell type so we're actually offering a specific therapy to correct that particular defect," explainedDr. Brian Czerniecki, who is heading up the study at Moffitt.

The defect that may also be present in other breast cancers, including DCIS, lies in T-cells called CD-4'S.

"We identified people who didn't have a complete response to therapy, have a loss of a particular type of immune cell called the CD4 cell, the same cell that the AIDS virus attacks," he said.

To fix the problem, a large catheter inserted in the neck is connected to a blood-filtering machine. A bag collects white blood cells that are then transformed and multiplied into over a hundred million cancer-fighting cells.

Treatments consist of injections of 20 million cells into a lymph node in the groin. So far, results are promising.

"Everyone to date, so far, their immune response has boosted up to where almost to the point where healthy women are walking around," Dr. Czerniecki said.

Side effects are flu-like symptoms, usually lasting about 24 hours. The side effect means the immune system is responding to the therapy.

Barbara hopes it's enough to keep her cancer from coming back.

"There's not a lot of options for us except chemo," she continued. "If we can stop it and let people get back to a healthy life, it's going to be amazing."

Read the rest here:
Experimental therapy uses immune system to fight breast cancer - FOX 13 News, Tampa Bay

Read More...

5 Symptoms of a Weakened Immune System – Step To Health

Monday, December 5th, 2016

Your immune system is the mechanism that your body uses to defend itself from viruses, bacteria, and many types of diseases.Sometimes, it tends to get weak: a poor diet, stress, or some kind of illness can all prevent it from performing its basic functions.

Your immune system is your defense, your immune response to certain external agents that can come inside of you and harm you. It is made up of a network of cells, tissues, and organs that work together to protect your body. You definitely know it, these protective cells are what are called leukocytes or white blood cells. They are in charge of attacking those organisms that causes sicknesses. These cells are found in the thymus, spleen, and bone marrow. They are called lymphatic organs.

If for whatever reason you have a lowered level of leukocytes at any given moment, you will not be able to take onthose external elements that make you sick.So it is important that you are aware of certain kinds of signals so that your doctor can immediately determine the origin of this weakness and you can take it on. So, lets take a look at the signs of aweakened immune system.

It is veryis true that fatigue can have a lot of causes.But when they are continuous, when you wake up in the morning for example and feel exhausted,when you end up tired from the smallest things, when the difference in temperature causes you to get depressed or nausea, etc This are all symptoms to keep in mind.

Urinary tract infections, stomach problems, inflamed and red gums, experiencing diarrhea oftenare examples that your immune system is not handling the external agents that come in your body like it should. It is not producing the proper response and it cannot defend you against certain viruses or bacteria.

How many colds do you tend to catch?One every month? Does your throat always hurt? Do you suddenly catch the flu? You should see your doctor so they can do a test on your levels of white blood cells. Your immune system may not be defending itself like it should.

Some people experience allergic reactions more often than others.They cannot respond to certain pollen, dust, and environmental agents that impact your skin or mucus, and that immediately affect health. If that is the case for you, it is possible that you have a weak immune system.

We all know it.A good diet is a synonymous with good health.But sometimes we only get that when we are already experiencing a problem, when we are already sick. It is necessary to have varied and balanced nutrition at all times, which is rich in fruit, vegetables, and lean protein, and low in excess sugar, fats, and alcohol. Citrus fruits are always excellent health, so dont forget to eat oranges, mandarins, papaya, grapes, tomatoes, etc.

Get a restful and repairing sleep.This is essential for keeping your immune system strong and for letting yourself recover energy and perform essential functions. Insomnia and concerns, the things that make you wait up constantly, are enemies of your health.

We also know this, but sometimes it gets by us.Washing your hands before eating, before handling food,after touching animals, after getting home from outside or work It is also important to take care of the cleanliness of your food. Wash the vegetables that you are going to cook well. Submerge them in water and get rid of any remnants. This is all essential forprotecting your immune system.

Stress is not only an emotion. If it turns chronic, it can cause serious problems.Toxins accumulate in your body, weaken your immune system, make you sick So keep it in mind. Establish priorities, learn to love yourself, find time for yourself and do things you like to do.

See the article here:
5 Symptoms of a Weakened Immune System - Step To Health

Read More...

How to Strengthen Your Immune System – wikiHow

Monday, December 5th, 2016

User Reviewed

Three Parts:Eating the Right FoodsTaking Vitamins and Other SupplementsAdopt a Healthy LifestyleCommunity Q&A

White blood cells, also known as leukocytes, are the body's natural defense against infections, and are a major part of the function of the immune system. They eat away foreign bacteria and other organisms that invade the body, and they are therefore responsible for immunity (the ability of the body to fight infections). Some people may have weaker immune systems genetically; others may have weaker immune systems because of viral or bacterial infections.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Talk to your doctor about immunoglobulin injections. If you have an especially weak immune system, you may need intravenous injections of immunoglobulins (polyvalent IgG antibodies) extracted from donor human blood. This is always by a doctor's advice and only if you have primary immune deficiencies, autoimmune diseases, severe inflammatory diseases, or acute infections.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

How can I lower the level of white blood cells in my blood?

You don't want to do this, unless told to do so by your doctor. Your white blood cells are critical for immune health, so unless you have excess that are causing other issues, you want to maintain them as well as possible.

Ask a Question

If this question (or a similar one) is answered twice in this section, please click here to let us know.

Featured Article

Categories: Featured Articles | Allergies and Immunization

In other languages:

Espaol:fortalecer tu sistema inmunolgico,Deutsch:Immunsystem strken,Portugus:Fortalecer o seu Sistema Imunolgico,Italiano:Rinforzare il Tuo Sistema Immunitario,Franais:renforcer votre systme immunitaire,: ,Nederlands:Je immuunsysteem versterken,:,Bahasa Indonesia:Memperkuat Sistem Kekebalan Tubuh,etina:Jak poslit imunitn systm,: ,: ,Ting Vit:Tng cng H Min dch

Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 514,094 times.

Yes No

Read the original here:
How to Strengthen Your Immune System - wikiHow

Read More...

Adrenal Fatigue And Your Immune System

Monday, December 5th, 2016

The hormones produced by your adrenal glands, particularly the stress hormone cortisol, play an important role in regulating your immune system. If your cortisol levels go too low or too high, this can lead to regular infections, chronic inflammation, autoimmune diseases or allergies. Maintaining a balanced level of cortisol is an important part of staying healthy.

One of cortisols many functions is to reduce inflammation. When your body encounters a pathogen, the immune system responds by quickly attacking it. This causes inflammation, which is often a good thing (it means the immune system is working). In those with healthy immune and endocrine systems, cortisol works to moderate the inflammation caused by an immune system response, but it does not completely eliminate it.

Cortisol levels can become imbalanced during the different stages of Adrenal Fatigue. In fact, your cortisol levels will largely depend on which stage of the condition you have reached. If you are still in the early stages, your cortisol levels are likely to be elevated, along with epinephrine and norepinephrine. If you are in the later stages of Adrenal Fatigue, your cortisol levels will be much, much lower. Neither result is beneficial for your immune system.

During the early stages of Adrenal Fatigue, your HPA axis is firing on all cylinders and producing lots of stress hormones. This means that your cortisol level is high, which suppresses the immune system and reduces inflammation.

Why does the body do this? Simply put, the immune system is a non-essential function for the kind of short-term stressful situation that our endocrine system is designed to counter. Reducing the immune systems effectiveness for a few hours, while we escape whatever physical danger is threatening us, is a pretty safe gamble. But the problem is that modern stress does not simply go away after a few hours. Todays stressors tend to be long term and entrenched, which means that cortisol levels can stay elevated for months or years.

Needless to say, a suppressed immune system leaves us vulnerable to disease. And those of us who are under long term stress tend to suffer disproportionately from cold and flu viruses, as well as bacterial infections.

Lets take one of the most stressful events in life losing a love one as an example. In 2011 researchers at the University of Birmingham conducted a study into the effect of bereavement on neutrophils (a type of white blood cell). They concluded that:

The emotional stress of bereavement is associated with suppressed neutrophil superoxide production and with a raised cortisol:DHEAS ratio. The stress of bereavement exaggerates the age-related decline in HPA axis and combines with immune ageing to further suppress immune function, which may help to the explain increased risk of infection in bereaved older adults.

Looking at Cushings Syndrome can also be a useful guide. This condition is sometimes known as hypercortisolism and is recognized through excessively high levels of cortisol. From reading the above, you might expect that Cushings sufferers tend to be vulnerable to regular infections. And in fact, according to the Cushings Support and Research Foundation, Cushings syndrome, with its elevated cortisol levels, certainly suppresses the immune system. Patients with Cushings syndrome are at risk for many unique and unusual infectious diseases.

Chronic stress puts your health at risk (Mayo Clinic) Neutrophil function and cortisol:DHEAS ratio in bereaved older adults (University of Birmingham) Stress-induced immune dysfunction: implications for health (Dr. Ronald Glaser, 2005) What effect does Cushings have on the immune system? (Cushings Support and Research Foundation)

If elevated cortisol is bad for our immune systems, then lowering our cortisol levels must be a good thing, right? Not necessarily. If your cortisol falls too far below the optimal level then you are completely removing the safety valve that prevents your immune system from over-reacting to threats.

During the later stages of Adrenal Fatigue the adrenal glands become tired, depleted and unable to produce the hormones that your body needs. Cortisol levels begin to fall rapidly and the Adrenal Fatigue sufferer quickly switches from having too much cortisol to having very little indeed.

This means that the regulating anti-inflammatory effect of cortisol is absent. Without sufficient cortisol, there is nothing to prevent severe, chronic inflammation. In effect, the immune system is running out of control. Low cortisol leads to increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which lead to an over-activation of the immune system and inflammation. According to Dr. Thomas Guilliams, an immunologist, The result is amplification of numerous inflammatory pathways and increased susceptibility to developing inflammatory diseases, including autoimmune diseases, mood disorders, atopy, malignancy, chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic pain syndromes, obesity, glucose dysregulation and fibromyalgia.

Beyond Adrenal Fatigue: From Anecdotal to Evidence Based Medicine (Dr. Thomas Guilliams)

See the original post:
Adrenal Fatigue And Your Immune System

Read More...

The Immune System – McGraw Hill Education

Monday, December 5th, 2016

f8P:72NK pvw(sRB9oPb)57ssrs@~_?6nNh58E$N_/|p M@U%R:Rk2b-.-Z7AH3*XUu1K8b!mC@R@ ;b,lFKVCZ>16uPtQPBCLOd3>i'tfg{{ wdCyAPw*?&]!0;$y7_y99HlW8g3[+IX|Gqd>.|03^uNUj@M?V/oRK{r9zL`p3^= DWqI>52J Z{Oq._/eDdLGv;-X68l[>fG1- uG]z83,]9O5y }IR"'ue."$oHhBWSeJY!Wm-5u~K5n_NKKLH-L8ibeN'p15^lg_zJ or kLI[M$Xe['E8SS. upnZglHFZ!+pX3B]=P"e9fQ+X@;VkCc'd1/"HDs}Ojd6~o8m#%#7.d@0phyE8.U>*@WqS ]I[bsl(VJ$|9Y)P(|f8p| | $B3%DY!5>gUu~.zG*:eLBQ9~cA|!i@5,kF>vu.iYLGE, @MsaY9E;a?Z^;IQ5L9JXpgav+& c~?{z*iYZ CXj5^*O:i~DlS'`phm2i!~uLG5!nQ}8k k2>m^ux1CSv5@T}uN *~e.Cg*xhC"Bp{{{|,?+Zm9bM?gKC&>=y{6b|`;J7/~RUF1Hmx j9D5Pl(8+y8}S|rn"ayuys!`3&SQyWwwM4Z[-jP19c^.Bf(*u|G$mw%q 8xuIR0ts(V>M,^" ,tTp%YBY*0Jf%n7NM!X&.U /XC9G{N$ r rSgWw"`GyKDL"RdZ]Yv7{;G+.P*ef7lw9Z"#f_ 0~s~Doi7^IN^.97z&jex&MLD_T=@^?"G~LR@u@j9lhFSay{ S|^m/cz"O=#1prq.tU}nx9|~zxF"^z:+#XdPn{U endstream endobj 223 0 obj > endobj 224 0 obj > endobj 225 0 obj [ /Indexed 227 0 R 239 238 0 R ] endobj 226 0 obj > endobj 227 0 obj [ /ICCBased 240 0 R ] endobj 228 0 obj > endobj 229 0 obj > endobj 230 0 obj > stream Hl@s@0R-fllo9PfO3S},N2wkkfY46ztYZ|~b7aHezq8I~/NK7o}ZxuOW2q|yWUn&..BkC+X72*rIl -tnC9%1C3ZJZ%tgFIkH(@N_0@N_2O0@N+> h!VO0@N%df_C20hY?Jd(t{0Z1KlMP6{6P6bze-@hZejeo!ecH-`T_'OS6g3Sua`=~ endstream endobj 231 0 obj > endobj 232 0 obj > stream HW[o$T!(af4C"enE!,HrIIu|B O$[y%xD j(4ZU/O[o%H8hI$YtA,x,#j _SlZ-&gxqvt7zM D)(MX(xl(J>C}'#>,E"b""f+ XGfx5Jhmj.%#zIloj`/9<9_2r{Uq`2bdl p~lp< lS|<| U~ZItV?q&)$2!`9XwDJ$t8s]9Q(t}gp- uj51M?|W&_M7'cI>[.[*TUX0@j%jH1uXvu;DpGgAOmgh:e>xv:^=C_fq1^]M7 5_X0tCzDOTSFDh$=P B4aHI<;"(;"Q?)cE#hVbZ/X.1]lKM4Wl< 2GJCbV>bX0@'49bW>uxACUUUf< HkDc[_gl=-'/+L'z2>-1jN6%tSzb3T0Zc#3$CmpD,,R.4{Lq]GzI"_oHD|&eD3N}ifC7.Xs$8y`452%gPI]t&6vvbb>VM?g= ?-0 `&?+2!X7xZ-BjOh4.6CAbZKJL* ]_^'p)id]F7Ovq'Xt}60c~*e'Dv=R%V=~JKg|rgc[G)dpP5K $KUX""L/o~UTzKOf]_ln0B#5_],--/[[@*V%.%Hu6R0"jjg@M tFc.xQ(NCUq42.+i_A{W KG;=v$D ~~2; +$X'#tDO9;Qqdtu3?Jq)fX0gZ,OCLKm$Y_(=W:VP~ZZBMXu0H1gV@n5JmDec^VbE<-mLjPS*:Z2e*o&tAn+-#L"}D,lBNb`t~Km!d /IU)c )i>%l|jJa*M'JFkQrm!nd5{j'@|op~a$hkiQ+FU"PH>c]Kpf;];a96wK~SAhyjR=wR$;@x9 ~F|7e6aLB!{iUP`hqBb%_wvCiwvyr{EorZ[*m>U]z6cB~Y6:Mz!^ZGcMl:w#V"(}]2}n"KrJ0FC]muJL-zp0G 4Iz_ AMI(FBP3')L71[5> E! #NBE!doJ0dfb4x+~*;z:/7k^HA^v[G4Zftpvu'(=(g>w?)[NYsB~')xL0zGl|?v[{e{f/dDr-zE-Y`jEh^3XK5E> endobj 234 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 181 /Widths [ 260 278 333 519 519 889 759 222 389 389 444 600 260 333 260 278 519 519 519 519 519 519 519 519 519 519 260 260 600 600 600 444 800 704 704 722 852 704 648 796 852 407 630 759 667 944 796 852 648 852 722 611 648 796 704 1000 741 722 704 389 278 389 600 500 296 481 537 444 556 463 352 500 556 296 278 556 296 815 556 519 556 556 426 407 352 537 500 741 537 537 463 389 222 389 600 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 519 519 260 260 260 260 260 800 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 600 260 260 260 537 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /AAMMEH+Cochin-Bold /FontDescriptor 233 0 R >> endobj 235 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 7397 /Subtype /Type1C >> stream HT{PSW%$^ 7z%S`VJU*!FIx 1! "(kmF+G]QmuVj=^Ngv{7;xA<"RRVJSWJmb%P1X;g 7X}$n/uCn6d `C['ss91I`3!FN:59l3fvDqHu @&d^Pjl@(sT`BP8zab7).wGjOD0v- -e5V;@Z`{lJ,+ r ~oBO8< ,V&Z4gB{w/-^J?Nx n#);{qn;OQj -E-Dy!*:J' s?ZQe>4DB0w YW`s* w_TeB^?l$M.P;(&,O}r.Kc3$EQ%~t-b2J}h*cMF! o"{w7Ox h|Z[azC`a^k?v*@&&'avC+O[WVPPi8w:UK_:}re9p{$PQ|"$@=oRsy!jPv% e0B/x? ~t4=1[-[/`&"Qk}':yIMT K |428a1+#tQV{ .}~~vjhKoI>SX-eC/D5+45EfFOV=zHor}q X5l~%eH&Rs:fh8N=^V m;fuvKWh%f4b?VspjxjmP9&rmLX^FWn+HdvmQpK(%uGpgbGoay%'TGrE~=A *di*7F Fqb|Z3N<}>VGxg_st!h '<]N^88&_5X=.RGdKt~!K_AHT$)=T9c#5_8r;P$|Tf:%esRci84F^j=kyqYj 3-03l,D[zop*z/90m;Wbd~j_{r9fhohd9Fhj=d'kvJ3vXNuE)PP`<3<3k<+rD4pq[Y^gXx;jQ*l@ F:v6*@pz7 `1Z@ }&viOqu@P,Z&B vV"5l-Vn/ ZBX# GZ>bu(J{h}CzGhYB-XpK"O ~H|zjE*=|#BM3eCSi8*1kwI`.5)b|DG^I"bRDNL$=?T*RU^Bp^R%P >+>@!}5 FoR.,IF|= :$F= ,`wZ'^'~p2yc'CxV5/"ep >cv yEdt8MEF!|'~NyA}r.=vzBWgw_>e%Dk~^OC%0^('^)$>KUD#P+DRcK+9uh?-V?%fxf_u+.g-vgYSebqYFYNV`q+y*z8QR8 &L}j1Y5}[Rcrv$UnBMdt;@1W+< 2ET!4,0&o+(`813$j4^V=*P" ,wdd}wf/3{eweA.,,A%x&Zm4Z#o=_rbrB?fyy^G_|J&Ag{DRZP7NX7~ 1xPchxdg4:4zHKSra"CuH2Uk1JJ9=GjuBhCHTBY0ka569sEbQCzi]e*%*KYaVkq:ONOlVIGt.us_ lyk kjvZd~,0Y0n9bHeLL[pa{UXyS&R+%5&m1nlR+kfl"JDwp627zW I7uD?9NafQC KZ+zZyejS 0} `[LQIWavSU7SnN~;==p5y+|er 0j%g/?b90`FkK_pAH 0{NS>/K~TCw/j(Lcf0bL>n B]dVUt#1fjI(ki"OKkXdeZFWOnDzYcQ0:, zN`5?H`4_rfN wct7zCy%Gv)sPQmjit9IeWYG@WU!mvlRDgIlFx3]Q!:O"sgKv1gID&dr[]29/Lv+>|`%@nJ7KvVGp~xd5Sx y0B35(/Tm2;?;58HLL00?kPTnN)u3U>1xjL)05 ^e%nV [mgVnc6J*)#ka%Jj"o+B|il/`Y, 3%>yF-z^BX[ !avk*-$;<*1an&e?);'7`))>Q'=VWi#dFJO*t6bwCz_$jqlWmLe4F;?l~Y63A`A'%R v/w}JZ(VA.fF4QL`s#~<[k1l7lbj4hU5FXm5wvcY6C)Tk%& t_NJ9wZOs4mnM-' pSgpgVXN.tiFQ)B8EfcS%^Vmu5#TJL *#g8SdM'uNyqZ]IicHb!8Rou5+ODTs(s0=r-/aR/HLu]uUrH}GnTsD0@JIR /O?,;{7.]Tta_5'L&3@ Jor+y$v|pttY4.O'-j:n!B0VP|jS!6>4~-T+X*pNq|-!W t,bJ) 'va=ZFDrdM9.ckEnw|g7GaF3jv[rB!8ail dZ"^L|jJ}? h,yM7^`1L=2s=&3{tCZj`1OF? endstream endobj 236 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 1933 /Subtype /Type1C >> stream HTmPSW!lCX:]jM" $ P>.&> WQtWV]tvtk^=,4bzC[8Kz!sp7n^7_ -p$U#O[S^jjfVI #/cAkz8s butw!3i4M6crsx33L3`i)];nYCb18:'qq):qO}8KOE?wTX }nG,&`DyP7Y3U h jG4^wnW'y}db[?5 @G -3-bB[]SDMc2h84UYblVEfXm$[ <&=fIU}1Sbt@o .8{ty.1p+,{`?Hs(b#g;>QDX8AG(OhxX4]ec-&{F=.$g% +>T|<,,.04}H|E5oso* --$Yv_ q[MOafw]Vu$_~U*0Z&0H rAeccsw]H9?&H1qrstW }xU!QO+!M~/ m)8nwmr,C/YtJJ@G'|Cm=8RE/h5XKRrCJL; me[k=_0#re7~$2+s?Kw*lr. &zI,&`x0Tz}^ij%z.Qjf!py4-Qjr+B7yo yoxY~En>f6^ T+-q'?Z&&&I2=YV ^HKE"eL3SL[)o5"p`UknT9 endstream endobj 237 0 obj << /Type /ExtGState /SA false /SM 0.02 /TR2 /Default >> endobj 238 0 obj << /Length 505 /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream Hv@bCE:- (yn6yitK.its=.m7I7.}C?}s``%-e94#YeU/LkPo>a]k05Zs>,mya(W1K{r&+[Aq:)PwVsfw[[o_ vzz7{G O`;5R!>c}pB)9E*zT VA$>j'Dg*4]hTuA!!%a$H,0fJ +e;1)8&ZSnd9nz;ny~CAPQQTq)DrI )zM!f5oYvk^VBy/Kr^q?Q=~z~)s endstream endobj 239 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 446 /Subtype /Type1C >> stream Hbd`ab`ddvtuvOuI g!C,r<*|gkl'nl.;@8IK endstream endobj 240 0 obj << /N 3 /Alternate /DeviceRGB /Length 2575 /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream HyTSwoc [5laQIBHADED2mtFOE.c}088GNg9w'0Jb 2y.-;!KZ ^i"L0-

Read this article:
The Immune System - McGraw Hill Education

Read More...

Stress, Illness and the Immune System | Simply Psychology

Monday, December 5th, 2016

The immune system is a collection of billions of cells that travel through the bloodstream. They move in and out of tissues and organs, defending the body against foreign bodies (antigens), such as bacteria, viruses and cancerous cells.

There are two types of lymphocytes:

B cells- produce antibodies which are released into the fluid surrounding the bodys cells to destroy the invading viruses and bacteria.

T cells (see picture opposite) - if the invader gets inside a cell, these (T cells) lock on to the infected cell, multiply and destroy it.

The main types of immune cells are white blood cells. There are two types of white blood cells lymphocytes and phagocytes.

When were stressed, the immune systems ability to fight off antigens is reduced. That is why we are more susceptible to infections.

The stress hormone corticosteroid can suppress the effectiveness of the immune system (e.g. lowers the number of lymphocytes).

Stress can also have an indirect effect on the immune system as a person may use unhealthy behavioral coping strategies to reduce their stress, such as drinking and smoking.

Stress is linked to: headaches; infectious illness (e.g. flu); cardiovascular disease; diabetes, asthma and gastric ulcers.

Stress responses have an effect on digestive system. During stress digestion is inhibited. After stress digestive activity increases. This may affect the health of digestive system and cause ulcers. Adrenaline released during a stress response may also cause ulcers.

Stress responses increase strain upon circulatory system due to increased heart rate etc. Stress can also affect the immune system by raising blood pressure.

Hypertension (consistently raised blood pressure over several weeks) is a major risk factor in coronary heart disease (CHD) However, CHD may be caused by eating too much salt, drinking too much coffee or alcohol.

Stress also produces an increase in blood cholesterol levels, through the action of adrenaline and noradrenaline on the release of free fatty acids. This produces a clumping together of cholesterol particles, leading to clots in the blood and in the artery walls and occlusion of the arteries.

In turn, raised heart rate is related to a more rapid build-up of cholesterol on artery walls. High blood pressure results in small lesions on the artery walls, and cholesterol tends to get trapped in these lesions (Holmes, 1994).

Stress can also have an indirect effect on illness as it is associated with all manner of bad habits (coping strategies), for example smoking, drinking alcohol to excess, poor diet due to lack of time, lack of exercise for the same reason, lack of sleep etc.

All of these are likely to have an adverse effect on a persons health so could cause some of the ill-effects attributed to stress per se.

Short term suppression of the immune system is not dangerous. However, chronic suppression leaves the body vulnerable to infection and disease.

A current example of this is AIDS - Acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Here the immune system is suppressed leaving the vulnerable to illness. Stress would just lead to frequent illness and infections.

Stress responses increase strain upon circulatory system due to increased heart rate etc. This may increase a persons risk of developing disorders of the heart and circulation e.g. coronary heart disease (CHD). Individuals with type A personality have a greater risk of developing CHD.

Stress responses have an effect on digestive system. During stress digestion is inhibited. After stress digestive activity increases. This may affect the health of digestive system and cause gastric ulcers

The executive monkey study by Brady (1958) seems to support this theory.

Aim: To investigate whether stress of important examinations has an effect on the functioning of the immune system

Procedure:

Findings: The blood sample taken from the first group (before the exam) contained more t-cells compared with blood samples taken during the exams.

The volunteers were also assessed using behavioral measures. On both occasions they were given questionnaires to assess psychiatric symptoms, loneliness and life events. This was because there are theories which suggest that all 3 are associated with increased levels of stress.

Kiecolt-Glaser et al found that immune responses were especially weak in those students who reported feeling most lonely, as well as those who were experiencing other stressful life events and psychiatric symptoms such as depression or anxiety.

Conclusion: Stress (of the exam) reduced the effectiveness of the immune system.

Evaluation: Difficult to unravel the relationship for certain. Does stress cause illness or does being ill make you more prone to stress?

Also many of the studies do not take into account for the other factors which affect peoples lives. These can be drugs, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, general health, diet, physical activity, sleep patterns, age and medication. Although many studies try to control these factors it is very unlikely to gain complete control.

Brady, J. V. (1958). Ulcers in" executive" monkeys. Scientific American.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Garner, W., Speicher, C., Penn, G. M., Holliday, J., & Glaser, R. (1984). Psychosocial modifiers of immunocompetence in medical students. Psychosomatic Medicine, 46(1), 7-14.

McLeod, S. A. (2010). Stress, Illness and the Immune System. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/stress-immune.html

View post:
Stress, Illness and the Immune System | Simply Psychology

Read More...

Diabetes Research: The Immune System

Monday, December 5th, 2016

Your bodys immune system is always on guard on the lookout for anything foreign that might have entered your body. When it detects an invader, it attacks. So when islet cells are transplanted from a donor pancreas into a patient, the patients immune system wants to destroy, or reject those foreign cells.

To protect the cells from attack, the patient takes anti-rejection drugs, also called immunosuppressants. As that word implies, these drugs suppress the immune system. The problem: you must take these powerful drugs for life. A suppressed immune system exposes the patient to infections and diseases. And, the drugs themselves can cause harmful side effects.

Thats why the DRI and our collaborators worldwide are so focused on finding better ways to protect the transplanted cells in the BioHub. Were investigating several methods to accomplish this, including preventing inflammation at the site of the transplant,using helper cells that offer natural defenses, protecting cells by wrapping them in a tight coating, and delivering lowdose anti-rejection drugs locally, only at the site of the transplant.

And theres another critical issue with the immune system. Type 1 diabetes occurs when the immune system sees your bodys own islet cells as foreign and destroys them. This is called autoimmunity. When islet cells are transplanted, the recipient could experience a recurrence of autoimmunity. DRI researchers are working to stop this attack from happening again.

Preventing Inflammation - Blocking the signals that trigger an immune response.

Adding Helper Cells -- Using the BioHub to give islets a helping hand.

Cell Encapsulation Trying to hide islet cells from the immune system.

Local Drug Delivery -- Delivering drugs only to where theyre needed, not throughout the entire body.

Immune Tolerance Educating the immune system to accept islet cells.

Learn more about thedevelopment of the BioHub mini organ to restore natural insulin production in those living with diabetes. Watch the BioHub video>>

Those who receive islet transplants must take immunosuppressive -- or "anti-rejection" -- drugs to prevent their immune system from rejecting the newly transplanted islets. DRI researchers are working on strategies to eliminate the need for these drugs.

Read more:
Diabetes Research: The Immune System

Read More...

Immune System Educational Videos | WatchKnowLearn

Monday, December 5th, 2016

There are 14 videos in this category and 8 videos in 2 subcategories.

Category Videos Category Videos Featured Videos

Ages: 14 - 18

2667 Views:

This 3D medical animation shows a macrophage ingesting bacteria. The macrophage then releases cytokines, chemicals that attract other leukocytes to the infected area. Plays music during the animation. Grades 9-12. 42 sec.

August 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Ages: 15 - 18

2871 Views:

Hank tells us about the team of deadly ninja assassins that is tasked with protecting our bodies from all the bad guys that want to kill us - also known as our immune system. (15:02)

September 4, 2012 at 04:29 AM

Ages: 13 - 18

5228 Views:

August 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Ages: 10 - 18

1044 Views:

July 7, 2011 at 02:51 PM

Ages: 8 - 12

3712 Views:

The many parts of your immune system work together to defend your body against diseases. White blood cells in your blood vessels and lymph vessels help protect your body by killing intruders and getting rid of harmful materials.

May 17, 2011 at 08:12 PM

Ages: 14 - 18

1265 Views:

March 25, 2009 at 06:41 PM

Ages: 9 - 18

1898 Views:

November 15, 2009 at 04:25 PM

Ages: 12 - 18

6767 Views:

This is a clip from the program The Immunological System: Recognition, Attack, and Memory. This segment shows how the immune system works. (03:16)

March 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Ages: 8 - 15

1936 Views:

November 28, 2010 at 01:47 PM

Ages: 10 - 18

1227 Views:

This video consists of a still image with red arrows pointing to the various parts of the body as the narrator discusses it.

February 14, 2010 at 01:11 PM

Loading featured videos...

See the rest here:
Immune System Educational Videos | WatchKnowLearn

Read More...

How to Boost Your Immune System – Cold, Flu, and Sinus …

Monday, December 5th, 2016

Why do you get every bug that passes through town, while your spouse and friends stay healthy? Blame your immune system, the network of cells and organs that fights off illness (or tries to, anyway!).

"How often you get sick is partly genes, plus the bacteria and viruses you're exposed to," says Lisa Cuchara, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Quinnipiac University. "But lifestyle is also key: exercise, sleep, and how stressed you are." Read on for how to get your system in fighting shape.

"I see a lot of chronic dieters who are low in protein, which your body needs to make white blood cells, the backbone of the immune system," says Roberta Lee, MD, vice chair of the department of integrative medicine at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City.

Many protein-rich foods, like lean meat and fish, also provide other immunity-boosting nutrients like iron, zinc, B vitamins, and omega-3 fatty acids. Also essential: Eating a good mix of produce to get an array of nutrients. What to do:

The drugstore may be full of so-called immunity boosters, but there's strong evidence for only two of them: vitamin D and probiotics. What to do:

In a large 2010 study, those who were active at least five days a week almost halved the length of their colds. Per other research, folks who exercised after getting a flu shot nearly doubled their immune response. Why? Exercise likely sparks a temporary rise in immune cells. What to do:Fit in 30 minutes of exercise five days a week. Just don't overdo it: More than 90 minutes of high-intensity exercise can put stress on the body, decreasing your immunity for up to three days.

Pushing yourself physically isn't the only thing that taxes your system. Emotional stress causes your body to release cortisol and adrenaline, which decrease T cells, says Bruce Rabin, MD, medical director of the University of Pittsburgh's Healthy Lifestyle Program.

Visit link:
How to Boost Your Immune System - Cold, Flu, and Sinus ...

Read More...

The Immune System and Immune Disorders – NativeRemedies

Monday, December 5th, 2016

The Skin The skin is obviously a physical barrier to many germs and toxins, as it contains special immune cells called Langerhans cells that act as warning bells to alert the immune system to any foreign agents. Langerhans cells also regulate the immune response to these agents, evident in the skins reaction to stinging nettles or a cat scratch. The skin also secretes antibacterial substances which hinder the growth of bugs on our skin.

The Mucus Membrane Linings - The eyes, nose, and mouth are all possible ports of entry for invading germs, but our tears, nasal secretions, and saliva all contain enzymes or cells of the immune system to keep the invaders at bay. The mucus membrane linings of the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary tracts also provide one of the first lines of defense against invasion by microbes or parasites.

Close

If the germs make it past this first line of defense, they encounter a number of immune components inside the body including:

The Lymphatic or Lymph System The swollen glands that we all check for in the neck are in fact lymph nodes that are part of the lymphatic system. The lymph system is similar to the circulatory system, in that it is an interconnected series of vessels carrying lymphatic fluid, except that lymphatic fluid is not pumped around the body (like the heart pumps blood), but rather it moves passively. Fluid oozes in and out of the lymphatic system with normal body and muscle movement. Lymph contains plasma (the watery part of the blood) and helps to carry nutrients, oxygen, and waste products from the blood cells through the capillary walls. Germs generally find their way into this fluid and are then carried to the lymph nodes, which act as filters. The lymph nodes filter the fluid, and if there are any germs, the immune cells in the node rise to the occasion to fight them off. If the lymph nodes swell up during this process, this acts as a sure indication of infection. The filtered lymphatic fluid is then returned to the blood stream where the cycle starts again.

The Thymus Gland The thymus gland is situated in the chest in front of the heart but behind the breast bone, and is responsible for producing T-cells, one of the important germ-fighting cells of the immune system. The thymus gland is very important for newborn babies (who need it to survive), but as we get older it becomes less important, as other parts of our immune system manage to compensate.

Bone Marrow All the cells of the immune system are originally derived from the bone marrow. Our bone marrow produces blood cells both red cells, which carry oxygen, as well as white blood cells, which are part of the immune system. There are many different types of white blood cells including T-cells, B-cells, natural killer cells, lymphocytes, etc. and they all work together to destroy the foreign cells or germs. The B-cells produce antibodies, or proteins that are specific to the germ (or antigen, which is anything foreign to the body) encountered. Specific B-cells are tuned into specific germs, and when that germ is present, the corresponding B-cell multiplies rapidly and produces the antibodies to destroy that germ. The antibodies then bind to the germ and prevent it from entering our cells. If this is not enough, the antibodies will cover the germ and signal the complement system for assistance.

The Spleen

The spleen is also an important filtration organ, as it searches for and filters out foreign cells as well as old red blood cells that need replacing. In addition, the spleen plays an important role in activating appropriate immune responses by presenting the antigen to the appropriate T or B cells, which in turn can then produce large amounts of anti-bodies.

White blood cells or leukocytes Immune cells are white blood cells, otherwise known as leukocytes, which are produced in large quantities in the bone marrow. There is a great variety of leukocytes, each with a specific function and role to play in the working of the immune system. Some of these blood cells seek out and destroy foreign organisms, some dispose of infected or mutated body cells, while others release proteins called antibodies that alert other cells to destroy invading organisms.

Antibodies Antibodies are Y-shaped proteins found in the blood and are made by B-cells. Essentially these proteins are used by the immune system to identify and block the effects of antigens. Thus when an antigen (or foreign cell) is identified, an antibody attaches itself - like a key fits into a lock and neutralizes the effect of the antigen.

The Complement system The complement system is a series of different proteins that work with (or compliment) the antibodies. These proteins flow freely in the blood and can therefore rapidly reach the site of an invasion where they can react directly with antigens (molecules that the body recognizes as foreign and potentially dangerous). When triggered, these complement proteins can trigger inflammation, attract eater cells such as macrophages to the area, cover intruders so that eater cells are more likely to destroy them, and directly kill intruders by causing the cells to burst. This in turn signals other clean up cells, called phagocytes to come and remove the burst cell. Other substances such as hormones, tumor necrosis factor, and interferons also play an integral part in the functioning of the immune system.

Close

Originally posted here:
The Immune System and Immune Disorders - NativeRemedies

Read More...

Immune System Defender – GameUp – BrainPOP.

Monday, December 5th, 2016

Compare and contrast the information gained from experiments, simulations, video, or multimedia sources with that gained from reading a text on the same topic.

Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; provide an accurate summary of the text distinct from prior knowledge or opinions.

Integrate information presented in different media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively) as well as in words to develop a coherent understanding of a topic or issue.

Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings.

Translate quantitative or technical information expressed in words in a text into visual form (e.g., a table or chart) and translate information expressed visually or mathematically (e.g., in an equation) into words.

Interpret information presented in diverse media and formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) and explain how it contributes to a topic, text, or issue under study.

Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including analogies or allusions to other texts.

Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., quantitative data, video, multimedia) in order to address a question or solve a problem.

Analyze the main ideas and supporting details presented in diverse media and formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) and explain how the ideas clarify a topic, text, or issue under study.

Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of using different mediums (e.g., print or digital text, video, multimedia) to present a particular topic or idea.

Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; trace the texts explanation or depiction of a complex process, phenomenon, or concept; provide an accurate summary of the text.

Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; summarize complex concepts, processes, or information presented in a text by paraphrasing them in simpler but still accurate terms.

Integrate quantitative or technical information expressed in words in a text with a version of that information expressed visually (e.g., in a flowchart, diagram, model, graph, or table).

Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the impact of a specific word choice on meaning and tone.

Original post:
Immune System Defender - GameUp - BrainPOP.

Read More...

Innate immune system – Wikipedia

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016

The innate immune system, also known as the non-specific immune system or in-born immunity system,[1] is an important subsystem of the overall immune system that comprises the cells and mechanisms that defend the host from infection by other organisms. The cells of the innate system recognize and respond to pathogens in a generic way, but, unlike the adaptive immune system, the system does not confer long-lasting or protective immunity to the host.[2] Innate immune systems provide immediate defense against infection, and are found in all classes of plant and animal life.

The innate immune system is an evolutionarily older defense strategy, and is the dominant immune system found in plants, fungi, insects, and primitive multicellular organisms.[3]

The major functions of the vertebrate innate immune system include:

Anatomical barriers include physical, chemical and biological barriers. The epithelial surfaces form a physical barrier that is impermeable to most infectious agents, acting as the first line of defense against invading organisms.[4]Desquamation (shedding) of skin epithelium also helps remove bacteria and other infectious agents that have adhered to the epithelial surfaces. Lack of blood vessels and inability of the epidermis to retain moisture, presence of sebaceous glands in the dermis provides an environment unsuitable for the survival of microbes.[4] In the gastrointestinal and respiratory tract, movement due to peristalsis or cilia, respectively, helps remove infectious agents.[4] Also, mucus traps infectious agents.[4] The gut flora can prevent the colonization of pathogenic bacteria by secreting toxic substances or by competing with pathogenic bacteria for nutrients or attachment to cell surfaces.[4] The flushing action of tears and saliva helps prevent infection of the eyes and mouth.[4]

Inflammation is one of the first responses of the immune system to infection or irritation. Inflammation is stimulated by chemical factors released by injured cells and serves to establish a physical barrier against the spread of infection, and to promote healing of any damaged tissue following the clearance of pathogens.[5]

The process of acute inflammation is initiated by cells already present in all tissues, mainly resident macrophages, dendritic cells, histiocytes, Kupffer cells, and mastocytes. These cells present receptors contained on the surface or within the cell, named pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), which recognize molecules that are broadly shared by pathogens but distinguishable from host molecules, collectively referred to as pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). At the onset of an infection, burn, or other injuries, these cells undergo activation (one of their PRRs recognizes a PAMP) and release inflammatory mediators responsible for the clinical signs of inflammation.

Chemical factors produced during inflammation (histamine, bradykinin, serotonin, leukotrienes, and prostaglandins) sensitize pain receptors, cause local vasodilation of the blood vessels, and attract phagocytes, especially neutrophils.[5] Neutrophils then trigger other parts of the immune system by releasing factors that summon additional leukocytes and lymphocytes. Cytokines produced by macrophages and other cells of the innate immune system mediate the inflammatory response. These cytokines include TNF, HMGB1, and IL-1.[6]

The inflammatory response is characterized by the following symptoms:

The complement system is a biochemical cascade of the immune system that helps, or complements, the ability of antibodies to clear pathogens or mark them for destruction by other cells. The cascade is composed of many plasma proteins, synthesized in the liver, primarily by hepatocytes. The proteins work together to:

Elements of the complement cascade can be found in many non-mammalian species including plants, birds, fish, and some species of invertebrates.[7]

All white blood cells (WBCs) are known as leukocytes. Leukocytes differ from other cells of the body in that they are not tightly associated with a particular organ or tissue; thus, their function is similar to that of independent, single-cell organisms. Leukocytes are able to move freely and interact with and capture cellular debris, foreign particles, and invading microorganisms. Unlike many other cells in the body, most innate immune leukocytes cannot divide or reproduce on their own, but are the products of multipotent hematopoietic stem cells present in the bone marrow.[2]

The innate leukocytes include: Natural killer cells, mast cells, eosinophils, basophils; and the phagocytic cells include macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells, and function within the immune system by identifying and eliminating pathogens that might cause infection.[3]

Mast cells are a type of innate immune cell that reside in connective tissue and in the mucous membranes. They are intimately associated with wound healing and defense against pathogens, but are also often associated with allergy and anaphylaxis.[5] When activated, mast cells rapidly release characteristic granules, rich in histamine and heparin, along with various hormonal mediators and chemokines, or chemotactic cytokines into the environment. Histamine dilates blood vessels, causing the characteristic signs of inflammation, and recruits neutrophils and macrophages.[5]

The word 'phagocyte' literally means 'eating cell'. These are immune cells that engulf, or 'phagocytose', pathogens or particles. To engulf a particle or pathogen, a phagocyte extends portions of its plasma membrane, wrapping the membrane around the particle until it is enveloped (i.e., the particle is now inside the cell). Once inside the cell, the invading pathogen is contained inside an endosome, which merges with a lysosome.[3] The lysosome contains enzymes and acids that kill and digest the particle or organism. In general, phagocytes patrol the body searching for pathogens, but are also able to react to a group of highly specialized molecular signals produced by other cells, called cytokines. The phagocytic cells of the immune system include macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells.

Phagocytosis of the hosts own cells is common as part of regular tissue development and maintenance. When host cells die, either by programmed cell death (also called apoptosis) or by cell injury due to a bacterial or viral infection, phagocytic cells are responsible for their removal from the affected site.[2] By helping to remove dead cells preceding growth and development of new healthy cells, phagocytosis is an important part of the healing process following tissue injury.

Macrophages, from the Greek, meaning "large eaters," are large phagocytic leukocytes, which are able to move outside of the vascular system by migrating across the walls of capillary vessels and entering the areas between cells in pursuit of invading pathogens. In tissues, organ-specific macrophages are differentiated from phagocytic cells present in the blood called monocytes. Macrophages are the most efficient phagocytes and can phagocytose substantial numbers of bacteria or other cells or microbes.[3] The binding of bacterial molecules to receptors on the surface of a macrophage triggers it to engulf and destroy the bacteria through the generation of a respiratory burst, causing the release of reactive oxygen species. Pathogens also stimulate the macrophage to produce chemokines, which summon other cells to the site of infection.[3]

Neutrophils, along with two other cell types (eosinophils and basophils; see below), are known as granulocytes due to the presence of granules in their cytoplasm, or as polymorphonuclear cells (PMNs) due to their distinctive lobed nuclei. Neutrophil granules contain a variety of toxic substances that kill or inhibit growth of bacteria and fungi. Similar to macrophages, neutrophils attack pathogens by activating a respiratory burst. The main products of the neutrophil respiratory burst are strong oxidizing agents including hydrogen peroxide, free oxygen radicals and hypochlorite. Neutrophils are the most abundant type of phagocyte, normally representing 50-60% of the total circulating leukocytes, and are usually the first cells to arrive at the site of an infection.[5] The bone marrow of a normal healthy adult produces more than 100 billion neutrophils per day, and more than 10 times that many per day during acute inflammation.[5]

Dendritic cells (DCs) are phagocytic cells present in tissues that are in contact with the external environment, mainly the skin (where they are often called Langerhans cells), and the inner mucosal lining of the nose, lungs, stomach, and intestines.[2] They are named for their resemblance to neuronal dendrites, but dendritic cells are not connected to the nervous system. Dendritic cells are very important in the process of antigen presentation, and serve as a link between the innate and adaptive immune systems.

Basophils and eosinophils are cells related to the neutrophil (see above). When activated by a pathogen encounter, histamine-releasing basophils are important in the defense against parasites and play a role in allergic reactions, such as asthma.[3] Upon activation, eosinophils secrete a range of highly toxic proteins and free radicals that are highly effective in killing parasites, but may also damage tissue during an allergic reaction. Activation and release of toxins by eosinophils are, therefore, tightly regulated to prevent any inappropriate tissue destruction.[5]

Natural killer cells (NK cells) are a component of the innate immune system that does not directly attack invading microbes. Rather, NK cells destroy compromised host cells, such as tumor cells or virus-infected cells, recognizing such cells by a condition known as "missing self." This term describes cells with abnormally low levels of a cell-surface marker called MHC I (major histocompatibility complex) - a situation that can arise in viral infections of host cells.[8] They were named "natural killer" because of the initial notion that they do not require activation in order to kill cells that are "missing self." For many years, it was unclear how NK cell recognize tumor cells and infected cells. It is now known that the MHC makeup on the surface of those cells is altered and the NK cells become activated through recognition of "missing self". Normal body cells are not recognized and attacked by NK cells because they express intact self MHC antigens. Those MHC antigens are recognized by killer cell immunoglobulin receptors (KIR) that, in essence, put the brakes on NK cells. The NK-92 cell line does not express KIR and is developed for tumor therapy.[9][10][11][12]

Like other 'unconventional' T cell subsets bearing invariant T cell receptors (TCRs), such as CD1d-restricted Natural Killer T cells, T cells exhibit characteristics that place them at the border between innate and adaptive immunity. On one hand, T cells may be considered a component of adaptive immunity in that they rearrange TCR genes to produce junctional diversity and develop a memory phenotype. However, the various subsets may also be considered part of the innate immune system where a restricted TCR or NK receptors may be used as a pattern recognition receptor. For example, according to this paradigm, large numbers of V9/V2 T cells respond within hours to common molecules produced by microbes, and highly restricted intraepithelial V1 T cells will respond to stressed epithelial cells.

The coagulation system overlaps with the immune system. Some products of the coagulation system can contribute to the non-specific defenses by their ability to increase vascular permeability and act as chemotactic agents for phagocytic cells. In addition, some of the products of the coagulation system are directly antimicrobial. For example, beta-lysine, a protein produced by platelets during coagulation, can cause lysis of many Gram-positive bacteria by acting as a cationic detergent.[4] Many acute-phase proteins of inflammation are involved in the coagulation system.

Also increased levels of lactoferrin and transferrin inhibit bacterial growth by binding iron, an essential nutrient for bacteria.[4]

The innate immune response to infectious and sterile injury is modulated by neural circuits that control cytokine production period. The inflammatory reflex is a prototypical neural circuit that controls cytokine production in spleen.[13] Action potentials transmitted via the vagus nerve to spleen mediate the release of acetylcholine, the neurotransmitter that inhibits cytokine release by interacting with alpha7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (CHRNA7) expressed on cytokine-producing cells.[14] The motor arc of the inflammatory reflex is termed the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway.

The parts of the innate immune system have different specificity for different pathogens.

Cells of the innate immune system, in effect, prevent free growth of bacteria within the body; however, many pathogens have evolved mechanisms allowing them to evade the innate immune system.[17][18]

Evasion strategies that circumvent the innate immune system include intracellular replication, such as in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, or a protective capsule that prevents lysis by complement and by phagocytes, as in salmonella.[19]Bacteroides species are normally mutualistic bacteria, making up a substantial portion of the mammalian gastrointestinal flora.[20] Some species (B. fragilis, for example) are opportunistic pathogens, causing infections of the peritoneal cavity. These species evade the immune system through inhibition of phagocytosis by affecting the receptors that phagocytes use to engulf bacteria or by mimicking host cells so that the immune system does not recognize them as foreign. Staphylococcus aureus inhibits the ability of the phagocyte to respond to chemokine signals. Other organisms such as M. tuberculosis, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Bacillus anthracis utilize mechanisms that directly kill the phagocyte.

Bacteria and fungi may also form complex biofilms, providing protection from the cells and proteins of the immune system; recent studies indicate that such biofilms are present in many successful infections, including the chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cenocepacia infections characteristic of cystic fibrosis.[21]

Type I interferons (IFN), secreted mainly by dendritic cells,[22] play the central role in antiviral host defense and creation of an effective antiviral state in a cell.[23] Viral components are recognized by different receptors: Toll-like receptors are located in the endosomal membrane and recognize double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), MDA5 and RIG-I receptors are located in the cytoplasm and recognize long dsRNA and phosphate-containing dsRNA respectively.[24] The viral recognition by MDA5 and RIG-I receptors in the cytoplasm induces a conformational change between the caspase-recruitment domain (CARD) and the CARD-containing adaptor MAVS. In parallel, the viral recognition by toll-like receptors in the endocytic compartments induces the activation of the adaptor protein TRIF. These two pathways converge in the recruitment and activation of the IKK/TBK-1 complex, inducing phosphorylation and homo- and hetero-dimerization of transcription factors IRF3 and IRF7. These molecules are translocated in the nucleus, where they induce IFN production with the presence of C-Jun (a particular transcription factor) and activating transcription factor 2. IFN then binds to the IFN receptors, inducing expression of hundreds of interferon-stimulated genes. This leads to production of proteins with antiviral properties, such as protein kinase R, which inhibits viral protein synthesis, or the 2,5-oligoadenylate synthetase family, which degrades viral RNA. These molecules establish an antiviral state in the cell.[23]

Some viruses are able to evade this immune system by producing molecules that interfere with the IFN production pathway. For example, the Influenza A virus produces NS1 protein, which can bind to single-stranded and double-stranded RNA, thus inhibiting type I IFN production. Influenza A virus also blocks protein kinase R activation and the establishment of the antiviral state.[25] The dengue virus also inhibits type I IFN production by blocking IRF-3 phosophorylation using NS2B3 protease complex.[26]

Bacteria (and perhaps other prokaryotic organisms), utilize a unique defense mechanism, called the restriction modification system to protect themselves from pathogens, such as bacteriophages. In this system, bacteria produce enzymes, called restriction endonucleases, that attack and destroy specific regions of the viral DNA of invading bacteriophages. Methylation of the host's own DNA marks it as "self" and prevents it from being attacked by endonucleases.[27] Restriction endonucleases and the restriction modification system exist exclusively in prokaryotes.

Invertebrates do not possess lymphocytes or an antibody-based humoral immune system, and it is likely that a multicomponent, adaptive immune system arose with the first vertebrates.[28] Nevertheless, invertebrates possess mechanisms that appear to be precursors of these aspects of vertebrate immunity. Pattern recognition receptors are proteins used by nearly all organisms to identify molecules associated with microbial pathogens. Toll-like receptors are a major class of pattern recognition receptor, that exists in all coelomates (animals with a body-cavity), including humans.[29] The complement system, as discussed above, is a biochemical cascade of the immune system that helps clear pathogens from an organism, and exists in most forms of life. Some invertebrates, including various insects, crabs, and worms utilize a modified form of the complement response known as the prophenoloxidase (proPO) system.[28]

Antimicrobial peptides are an evolutionarily conserved component of the innate immune response found among all classes of life and represent the main form of invertebrate systemic immunity. Several species of insect produce antimicrobial peptides known as defensins and cecropins.

In invertebrates, pattern recognition proteins (PRPs) trigger proteolytic cascades that degrade proteins and control many of the mechanisms of the innate immune system of invertebratesincluding hemolymph coagulation and melanization. Proteolytic cascades are important components of the invertebrate immune system because they are turned on more rapidly than other innate immune reactions because they do not rely on gene changes. Proteolytic cascades have been found to function the same in both vertebrate and invertebrates, even though different proteins are used throughout the cascades.[30]

In the hemolymph, which makes up the fluid in the circulatory system of arthropods, a gel-like fluid surrounds pathogen invaders, similar to the way blood does in other animals. There are various different proteins and mechanisms that are involved in invertebrate clotting. In crustaceans, transglutaminase from blood cells and mobile plasma proteins make up the clotting system, where the transglutaminase polymerizes 210 kDa subunits of a plasma-clotting protein. On the other hand, in the horseshoe crab species clotting system, components of proteolytic cascades are stored as inactive forms in granules of hemocytes, which are released when foreign molecules, like lipopolysaccharides enter.[30]

Members of every class of pathogen that infect humans also infect plants. Although the exact pathogenic species vary with the infected species, bacteria, fungi, viruses, nematodes, and insects can all cause plant disease. As with animals, plants attacked by insects or other pathogens use a set of complex metabolic responses that lead to the formation of defensive chemical compounds that fight infection or make the plant less attractive to insects and other herbivores.[31] (see: plant defense against herbivory).

Like invertebrates, plants neither generate antibody or T-cell responses nor possess mobile cells that detect and attack pathogens. In addition, in case of infection, parts of some plants are treated as disposable and replaceable, in ways that very few animals are able to do. Walling off or discarding a part of a plant helps stop spread of an infection.[31]

Most plant immune responses involve systemic chemical signals sent throughout a plant. Plants use pattern-recognition receptors to recognize conserved microbial signatures. This recognition triggers an immune response. The first plant receptors of conserved microbial signatures were identified in rice (XA21, 1995)[32][33] and in Arabidopsis (FLS2, 2000).[34] Plants also carry immune receptors that recognize highly variable pathogen effectors. These include the NBS-LRR class of proteins. When a part of a plant becomes infected with a microbial or viral pathogen, in case of an incompatible interaction triggered by specific elicitors, the plant produces a localized hypersensitive response (HR), in which cells at the site of infection undergo rapid programmed cell death to prevent the spread of the disease to other parts of the plant. HR has some similarities to animal pyroptosis, such as a requirement of caspase-1-like proteolytic activity of VPE, a cysteine protease that regulates cell disassembly during cell death.[35]

"Resistance" (R) proteins, encoded by R genes, are widely present in plants and detect pathogens. These proteins contain domains similar to the NOD Like Receptors and Toll-like receptors utilized in animal innate immunity. Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) is a type of defensive response that renders the entire plant resistant to a broad spectrum of infectious agents.[36] SAR involves the production of chemical messengers, such as salicylic acid or jasmonic acid. Some of these travel through the plant and signal other cells to produce defensive compounds to protect uninfected parts, e.g., leaves.[37] Salicylic acid itself, although indispensable for expression of SAR, is not the translocated signal responsible for the systemic response. Recent evidence indicates a role for jasmonates in transmission of the signal to distal portions of the plant. RNA silencing mechanisms are also important in the plant systemic response, as they can block virus replication.[38] The jasmonic acid response, is stimulated in leaves damaged by insects, and involves the production of methyl jasmonate.[31]

Read this article:
Innate immune system - Wikipedia

Read More...

Prevention of Measles, Rubella, Congenital Rubella …

Friday, November 18th, 2016

Persons using assistive technology might not be able to fully access information in this file. For assistance, please send e-mail to: mmwrq@cdc.gov. Type 508 Accommodation and the title of the report in the subject line of e-mail.

Please note: An erratum has been published for this article. To view the erratum, please click here.

Huong Q. McLean, PhD1

Amy Parker Fiebelkorn, MSN2

Jonathan L. Temte, MD3

Gregory S. Wallace, MD2

1Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin

2Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC

3School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

Corresponding preparer: Amy Parker Fiebelkorn, MSN, Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC. Telephone: 404-639-8235; E-mail: aparker@cdc.gov.

Summary

This report is a compendium of all current recommendations for the prevention of measles, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), and mumps. The report presents the recent revisions adopted by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on October 24, 2012, and also summarizes all existing ACIP recommendations that have been published previously during 19982011 (CDC. Measles, mumps, and rubellavaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of mumps: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 1998;47[No. RR-8]; CDC. Revised ACIP recommendation for avoiding pregnancy after receiving a rubella-containing vaccine. MMWR 2001;50:1117; CDC. Updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] for the control and elimination of mumps. MMWR 2006;55:62930; and, CDC. Immunization of health-care personnel: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2011;60[No. RR-7]).Currently, ACIP recommends 2 doses of MMR vaccine routinely for children with the first dose administered at age 12 through 15 months and the second dose administered at age 4 through 6 years before school entry. Two doses are recommended for adults at high risk for exposure and transmission (e.g., students attending colleges or other post-high school educational institutions, health-care personnel, and international travelers) and 1 dose for other adults aged 18 years. For prevention of rubella, 1 dose of MMR vaccine is recommended for persons aged 12 months.

At the October 24, 2012 meeting, ACIP adopted the following revisions, which are published here for the first time. These included:

As a compendium of all current recommendations for the prevention of measles, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), and mumps, the information in this report is intended for use by clinicians as baseline guidance for scheduling of vaccinations for these conditions and considerations regarding vaccination of special populations. ACIP recommendations are reviewed periodically and are revised as indicated when new information becomes available.

Measles, rubella, and mumps are acute viral diseases that can cause serious disease and complications of disease but can be prevented with vaccination. Vaccines for prevention of measles, rubella, and mumps were licensed and recommended for use in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. Because of successful vaccination programs, measles, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), and mumps are now uncommon in the United States. However, recent outbreaks of measles (1) and mumps (2,3) have occurred from import-associated cases because these diseases are common in many other countries. Persons who are unvaccinated put themselves and others at risk for these diseases and related complications.

Two live attenuated vaccines are licensed and available in the United States to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella: MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella [M-M-R II, Merck & Co., Inc.]), which is indicated routinely for persons aged 12 months and infants aged 6 months who are traveling internationally and MMRV vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella [ProQuad, Merck & Co., Inc.]) licensed for children aged 12 months through 12 years. For the purposes of this report, MMR vaccine will be used as a general term for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination; however, age-appropriate use of either licensed vaccine formulation can be used to implement these vaccination recommendations.

For the prevention of measles, mumps, and rubella, vaccination is recommended for persons aged 12 months. For the prevention of measles and mumps, ACIP recommends 2 doses of MMR vaccine routinely for children with the first dose administered at age 12 through 15 months and the second dose administered at age 4 through 6 years before school entry. Two doses are recommended for adults at high risk for exposure and transmission (e.g., students attending colleges or other post-high school educational institutions, health-care personnel, and international travelers) and 1 dose for other adults aged 18 years. For prevention of rubella, 1 dose of MMR vaccine is recommended for persons aged 12 months. This report is a compendium of all current recommendations for the prevention of measles, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), and mumps. The report presents the recent revisions adopted by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on October 24, 2012, and also summarizes all existing ACIP recommendations that have been published previously during 19982011 (46). As a compendium of all current ACIP recommendations, the information in this report is intended for use by clinicians as guidance for scheduling of vaccinations for these conditions and considerations regarding vaccination of special populations.

Periodically, ACIP reviews available information to inform the development or revision of its vaccine recommendations. In May 2011, the ACIP measles, rubella, and mumps work group was formed to review and revise previously published vaccine recommendations. The work group held teleconference meetings monthly from May 2011 through October 2012. In addition to ACIP members, the work group included participants from the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College Health Association, the Association of Immunization Managers, CDC, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (Canada), the National Institute of Health (NIH), and other infectious disease experts (7).*

Issues reviewed and considered by the work group included epidemiology of measles, rubella, CRS, and mumps in the United States; use of MMR vaccine among persons with HIV infection, specifically, revaccination of persons with perinatal HIV infection who were vaccinated before effective antiretroviral therapy (ART); use of a third dose of MMR vaccine for mumps outbreak control; timing of vaccine doses; use of immune globulin (IG) for measles postexposure prophylaxis; and vaccine safety. Recommendation options were developed and discussed by the work group. When evidence was lacking, the recommendations incorporated expert opinion of the work group members. Proposed revisions and a draft statement were presented to ACIP (ACIP meeting October 2011; February and June 2012) and approved at the October 2012 ACIP meeting. ACIP meeting minutes, including declaration of ACIP member conflicts of interest, if any, are available at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/meetings-info.html.

Measles (rubeola) is classified as a member of the genus Morbillivirus in the family Paramyxoviridae. Measles is a highly contagious rash illness that is transmitted from person to person by direct contact with respiratory droplets or airborne spread. After exposure, up to 90% of susceptible persons develop measles. The average incubation period for measles is 10 to 12 days from exposure to prodrome and 14 days from exposure to rash (range: 721 days). Persons with measles are infectious 4 days before through 4 days after rash onset. In the United States, from 1987 to 2000, the most commonly reported complications associated with measles infection were pneumonia (6%), otitis media (7%), and diarrhea (8%) (8). For every 1,000 reported measles cases in the United States, approximately one case of encephalitis and two to three deaths resulted (911). The risk for death from measles or its complications is greater for infants, young children, and adults than for older children and adolescents. In low to middle income countries where malnutrition is common, measles is often more severe and the case-fatality ratio can be as high as 25% (12). In addition, measles can be severe and prolonged among immunocompromised persons, particularly those who have leukemias, lymphomas, or HIV infection (1315). Among these persons, measles can occur without the typical rash and a patient can shed measles virus for several weeks after the acute illness (1618). However, a fatal measles case without rash also has been reported in an apparently immunocompetent person (19).

Pregnant women also might be at high risk for severe measles and complications; however, available evidence does not support an association between measles in pregnancy and congenital defects (20). Measles illness in pregnancy might be associated with increased rates of spontaneous abortion, premature labor and preterm delivery, and low birthweight among affected infants (2023).

A persistent measles virus infection can result in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), a rare and usually fatal neurologic degenerative disease. The risk for developing SSPE is 411 per 100,000 measles cases (24,25), but can be higher when measles occurs among children aged <2 years (25,26). Signs and symptoms of SSPE appear an average of 7 years after measles infection, but might appear decades later (27). Widespread use of measles vaccine has led to the virtual disappearance of SSPE in the United States, but imported cases still occur (28). Available epidemiologic and virologic data indicate that measles vaccine virus does not cause SSPE (27). Wild type measles virus nucleotide sequences have been detected consistently from persons with SSPE who have reported vaccination and no history of natural infection (24,2934).

Before implementation of the national measles vaccination program in 1963, measles occurred in epidemic cycles and virtually every person acquired measles before adulthood (an estimated 3 to 4 million persons acquired measles each year). Approximately 500,000 persons with measles were reported each year in the United States, of whom 500 persons died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and another 1,000 had permanent brain damage from measles encephalitis (28).

After the introduction of the 1-dose measles vaccination program, the number of reported measles cases decreased during the late 1960s and early 1970s to approximately 22,00075,000 cases per year (Figure 1) (35,36). Although measles incidence decreased substantially in all age groups, the greatest decrease occurred among children aged <10 years. During 1984 through 1988, an average of 3,750 cases was reported each year (37). However, measles outbreaks among school-aged children who had received 1 dose of measles vaccine prompted ACIP in 1989 to recommend that all children receive 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine, preferably as MMR vaccine (38,39). The second dose of measles-containing vaccine primarily was intended to induce immunity in the small percentage of persons who did not seroconvert after vaccination with the first dose of vaccine (primary vaccine failure).

During 1989 through 1991, a major resurgence of measles occurred in the United States. Approximately 55,000 cases and 120 measles-related deaths were reported. The resurgence was characterized by an increasing proportion of cases among unvaccinated preschool-aged children, particularly among those residing in urban areas (40,41). Efforts to increase vaccination coverage among preschool-aged children emphasized vaccination as close to the recommended age as possible. To improve access to ACIP-recommended vaccines, the Vaccines for Children program, a federally funded program that provides vaccines at no cost to eligible persons aged <19 years, was initiated in 1993 (42).

These efforts, combined with ongoing implementation of the 2-dose MMR vaccine recommendation, reduced reported measles cases to 309 in 1995 (43). During 1993, both epidemiologic and laboratory evidence suggested that transmission of indigenous measles had been interrupted in the United States (44,45).

The recommended measles vaccination schedule changed as knowledge of measles immunity increased and as the epidemiology of measles evolved within the United States. The recommended age for vaccination was 9 months in 1963, 12 months in 1965, and 15 months in 1967. In 1989, because of reported measles outbreaks among vaccinated school-aged children, ACIP and AAFP recommended 2 doses; with the first dose at age 15 months and the second dose at age 4 through 6 years, before school entry. In contrast, AAP had recommended administration of the second dose before middle school entry because outbreaks were occurring in older children, and to help reinforce the adolescent doctor's visit and counteract possible secondary vaccine failure (46). Since 1994, ages recommended by ACIP, AAFP, and AAP have been the same for the 2-dose MMR vaccine schedule; the first dose should be given to children aged 12 through 15 months and the second dose should be given to children aged 4 through 6 years (47).

Because of the success of the measles vaccination program in achieving and maintaining high 1-dose MMR vaccine coverage in preschool-aged children, high 2-dose MMR vaccine coverage in school-aged children, and improved measles control in the World Health Organization (WHO) Region of the Americas, measles was documented and verified as eliminated from the United States in 2000 (48). Elimination is defined as the absence of endemic transmission (i.e., interruption of continuous transmission lasting 12 months). In 2002, measles was declared eliminated from the WHO Region of the Americas (49).

Documenting and verifying the interruption of endemic transmission of the measles and rubella viruses in the Americas is ongoing in accordance with the Pan American Health Organization mandate of 2007 (http://www.paho.org/english/gov/csp/csp27.r2-e.pdf). An expert panel reviewed available data and unanimously agreed in December 2011 that measles elimination has been maintained in the United States (50,51). However, measles cases associated with importation of the virus from other countries continue to occur. From 2001 through 2011, a median of 63 measles cases (range: 37220) and four outbreaks, defined as three or more cases linked in time or place (range: 217), were reported each year in the United States. Of the 911 cases, a total of 372 (41%) cases were importations, 804 (88%) were associated with importations, and 225 (25%) involved hospitalization. Two deaths were reported. Among the 162 cases reported from 2004 through 2008 among unvaccinated U.S. residents eligible for vaccination, a total of 110 (68%) were known to have occurred in persons who declined vaccination because of a philosophical, religious, or personal objection (52).

Rubella (German measles) is classified as a Rubivirus in the Togaviridae family. Rubella is an illness transmitted through direct or droplet contact from nasopharyngeal secretions and is characterized by rash, low-grade fever, lymphadenopathy, and malaise. Symptoms are often mild and up to 50% of rubella infections are subclinical (53,54). However, among adults infected with rubella, transient arthralgia or arthritis occurs frequently, particularly among women (55). Other complications occur infrequently; thrombocytopenic purpura occurs in approximately one out of 3,000 cases and is more likely to involve children (56), and encephalitis occurs in approximately one out of 6,000 cases and is more likely to involve adults (57,58).

Rubella infection in pregnant women, especially during the first trimester, can result in miscarriages, stillbirths, and CRS, a constellation of birth defects that often includes cataracts, hearing loss, mental retardation, and congenital heart defects. In addition, infants with CRS frequently exhibit both intrauterine and postnatal growth retardation. Infants who are moderately or severely affected by CRS are readily recognizable at birth, but mild CRS (e.g., slight cardiac involvement or deafness) might not be detected for months or years after birth or not at all. The risk for congenital infection and defects is highest during the first 12 weeks of gestation (5962), and the risk for any defect decreases after the 12th week of gestation. Defects are rare when infection occurs after the 20th week (63). Subclinical maternal rubella infection also can cause congenital malformations. Fetal infection without clinical signs of CRS can occur during any stage of pregnancy.

Rubella reinfection can occur and has been reported after both wild type rubella infection and after receiving 1 dose of rubella vaccine. Asymptomatic maternal reinfection in pregnancy has been considered to present minimal risk to the fetus (congenital infection in <10%) (64), but several isolated reports have been made of fetal infection and CRS among infants born to mothers who had documented serologic evidence of rubella immunity before they became pregnant and had reinfection during the first 12 weeks of gestation (6468). CRS was not reported when reinfection occurred after 12 weeks gestation (6971).

Before licensure of live, attenuated rubella vaccines in the United States in 1969, rubella was common, and epidemics occurred every 6 to 9 years (72). Most rubella cases were among young children, with peak incidence among children aged 5 through 9 years (73). During the 1964 through 1965 rubella epidemic, an estimated 12.5 million rubella cases occurred in the United States, resulting in approximately 2,000 cases of encephalitis, 11,250 fetal deaths attributable to spontaneous or therapeutic abortions, 2,100 infants who were stillborn or died soon after birth, and 20,000 infants born with CRS (74).

After introduction of rubella vaccines in the United States in 1969, reported rubella cases declined 78%, from 57,686 in 1969 to 12,491 in 1976, and reported CRS cases declined by 69%, from 68 in 1970 to 23 in 1976 (Figure 2) (73). Rubella incidence declined in all age groups, but children aged <15 years experienced the greatest decline. Despite the declines, rubella outbreaks continued to occur among older adolescents and young adults and in settings where unvaccinated adults congregated. In 1977 and 1984, ACIP modified its recommendations to include vaccination of susceptible postpubertal females, adolescents, persons in military service, college students, and persons in certain work settings (75,76). The number of reported rubella cases decreased from 20,395 in 1977 to 225 in 1988, and CRS cases decreased from 29 in 1977 to 2 in 1988 (77).

During 1989 through 1991, a resurgence of rubella occurred, primarily because of outbreaks among unvaccinated adolescents and young adults who initially were not recommended for vaccination and in religious communities with low rubella vaccination coverage (77). As a result of the rubella outbreaks, two clusters of approximately 20 CRS cases occurred (78,79). Outbreaks during the mid-1990s occurred in settings where young adults congregated and involved unvaccinated persons who belonged to specific racial/ethnic groups (80). Further declines occurred as rubella vaccination efforts increased in other countries in the WHO Region of the Americas. From 2001 through 2004, reported rubella and CRS cases were at an all-time low, with an average of 14 reported rubella cases a year, four CRS cases, and one rubella outbreak (defined as three or more cases linked in time or place) (81).

In 2004, a panel convened by CDC reviewed available data and verified elimination of rubella in the United States (82). Rubella elimination is defined as the absence of endemic rubella transmission (i.e., continuous transmission lasting 12 months). From 2005 through 2011, a median of 11 rubella cases was reported each year in the United States (range: 418). In addition, two rubella outbreaks involving three cases, as well as four total CRS cases, were reported. Among the 67 rubella cases reported from 2005 through 2011, a total of 28 (42%) cases were known importations (83; CDC, unpublished data, 2012).

In 2010, on the basis of surveillance data, the Pan American Health Organization indicated that the WHO Region of the Americas had achieved the rubella and CRS elimination goals set in 2003 (84). Verification of maintenance of rubella elimination in the region is ongoing. However, an expert panel reviewed available data and unanimously agreed in December 2011 that rubella elimination has been maintained in the United States (50,51).

Mumps virus is a member of the genus Rubulavirus in the Paramyxoviridae family. Mumps is an acute viral infection characterized by fever and inflammation of the salivary glands. Parotitis is the most common manifestation, with onset an average of 16 to 18 days after exposure (range: 1225 days). In some studies, mumps symptoms were described as nonspecific or primarily respiratory; however, these reports based findings on serologic results taken every 6 or 12 months, making it difficult to prove whether the respiratory tract symptoms were caused by mumps virus infection or if the symptoms happened to occur at the same time as the mumps infection (85,86). In other studies conducted during the prevaccine era, 15%27% of infections were described as asymptomatic (85,87,88). In the vaccine era, it is difficult to estimate the number of asymptomatic infections because the way vaccine modifies clinical presentation is unclear and only clinical cases with parotitis, other salivary gland involvement, or mumps-related complications are notifiable. Serious complications can occur in the absence of parotitis (89,90). Results from an outbreak from 2009 through 2010 indicated that complications are lower in vaccinated patients than with unvaccinated patients (6); however, during an outbreak in 2006, vaccination status was not significantly associated with complications (91). Persons with mumps are most infectious around the time of parotitis onset (92). Complications of mumps infection can vary with age and sex.

In the prevaccine era, orchitis was reported in 12%66% of postpubertal males infected with mumps (93,94), compared with U.S. outbreaks in 2006 and 2009 through 2010 in the vaccine era, during which the range of rates of orchitis among postpubertal males was 3%10% (91,95,96). In 60%83% of males with mumps orchitis, only one testis is affected (87,90). Sterility from mumps orchitis, even bilateral orchitis, occurs infrequently (93).

In the prevaccine era among postpubertal women, oophoritis was reported in approximately 5% of postpubertal females affected with mumps (97,98). Mastitis was included in case reports (99,100) but also was described in a 19561957 outbreak as affecting 31% of postpubertal females (87). A significant association between prepubescent mumps in females and infertility has been reported; it has been suggested that oophoritis might have resulted in a disturbance of follicular maturation (101). In the vaccine era, among postpubertal females, the range of oophoritis rates was 1% (91,95,96) and the range of mastitis rates was 1% (91,95,96).

In the prevaccine era, pancreatitis was reported in 4% of 342 persons infected with mumps in one community during a 2-year period (85) and was described in case reports (102,103). Mumps also was a major cause of hearing loss among children in the prevaccine era, which could be sudden in onset, bilateral, or permanent hearing loss (104106). In the prevaccine era, clinical aseptic meningitis occurred in 0.02%10% of mumps cases and typically was mild (85,88,107109). However, in exceedingly rare cases, mumps meningoencephalitis can cause permanent sequelae, including severe ataxia (110). The incidence of mumps encephalitis ranged from one in 6,000 mumps cases (0.02%) (107) to one in 300 mumps cases (0.3%) in the prevaccine era (111). In the vaccine era, reported rates of pancreatitis, deafness, meningitis, and encephalitis were all <1% (91,95,96).

The average annual rate of hospitalization resulting from mumps during World War I was 55.8 per 1,000, which was exceeded only by the rates for influenza and gonorrhea (112). Mumps was a major cause of viral encephalitis, accounting for approximately 36% of encephalitis cases in 1967 (111). Death from mumps is exceedingly rare and is primarily caused by mumps-associated encephalitis (111). In the United States, from 1966 through 1971, two deaths occurred per 10,000 reported mumps cases (111). Among vaccinated persons, severe complications of mumps are uncommon but occur more frequently among adults than children. No mumps-related deaths were reported in the 2006 or the 20092010 U.S. outbreaks (91,95,96).

Among pregnant women with mumps during the first trimester, an increased rate of spontaneous abortion or intrauterine fetal death has been observed in some studies; however, no evidence indicates that mumps causes birth defects (87,113116).

Before the introduction of vaccine in 1967, mumps was a universal disease of childhood. Most children were infected by age 14 years, with peak incidence among children aged 5 through 9 years (117,118). Outbreaks among the military were common, especially during times of mobilization (119,120).

Reported cases of mumps decreased steadily after the introduction of live mumps vaccine in 1967 and the recommendation in 1977 for routine vaccination (Figure 3) (121). However, from 1986 through 1987, a resurgence of mumps occurred when a cohort not targeted for vaccination and spared from natural infection by declining disease rates entered high school and college, resulting in 20,638 reported cases (122,123). By the early 2000s, on average, fewer than 270 cases were reported annually; a decrease of approximately 99% from the 152,209 cases reported in 1968, and seasonal peaks were no longer present (124). In 2006, an outbreak of 6,584 cases occurred and was centered among highly 2-dose vaccinated college students in the Midwestern United States (91). Children began receiving 2 doses of mumps vaccine after implementation of a 2-dose measles vaccination policy using MMR vaccine in 1989 (39). Nonetheless, ACIP specified in 2006 that all children and adults in certain high risk groups, including students at post-high school educational institutions, health-care personnel, and international travelers, should receive 2 doses of mumps-containing vaccine (3). From 2009 through 2010, mumps outbreaks occurred in a religious community in the Northeastern United States with approximately 3,500 cases and in the U.S. territory of Guam with 505 cases reported. Similar to the 2006 mumps outbreak, most patients had received 2 doses of MMR vaccine and were exposed in densely congregate settings (88,94). In 2011, a university campus in California reported 29 cases of mumps, of which 22 (76%) occurred among persons previously vaccinated with the recommended 2 doses of MMR vaccine (5).

Two combination vaccines are licensed and available in the United States to prevent measles, rubella, and mumps: trivalent MMR vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella [M-M-R II, Merck & Co., Inc.]) and quadrivalent MMRV vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella-varicella [ProQuad, Merck & Co., Inc.]). The efficacy and effectiveness of each component of the MMR vaccine is described below. MMRV vaccine was licensed on the basis of noninferior immunogenicity of the antigenic components compared with simultaneous administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (125). Formal studies to evaluate the clinical efficacy of MMRV vaccine have not been performed; efficacy of MMRV vaccine was inferred from that of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine on the basis of noninferior immunogenicity (126). Monovalent measles, rubella, and mumps vaccines and other vaccine combinations are no longer commercially available in the United States.

The measles component of the combination vaccines that are currently distributed in the United States was licensed in 1968 and contains the live Enders-Edmonston (formerly called "Moraten") vaccine strain. Enders-Edmonston vaccine strain is a further attenuated preparation of a previous vaccine strain (Edmonston B) that is grown in chick embryo cell culture. Because of increased efficacy and fewer adverse reactions, the vaccine containing the Enders-Edmonston vaccine strain replaced previous vaccines: inactivated Edmonston vaccine (available in the United States from 1963 through 1976), live attenuated vaccines containing the Edmonston B (available in the United States from 1963 through 1975), and Schwarz strain (available in the United States from 1965 through 1976).

Measles-containing vaccines produce a subclinical or mild, noncommunicable infection inducing both humoral and cellular immunity. Antibodies develop among approximately 96% of children vaccinated at age 12 months with a single dose of the Enders-Edmonston vaccine strain (Table 1) (127134). Almost all persons who do not respond to the measles component of the first dose of MMR vaccine at age 12 months respond to the second dose (135,136).

Data on early measles vaccination suggest that infants vaccinated at age 6 months might have an age-related delay in maturation of humoral immune response to measles vaccine, unrelated to passively transferred maternal antibody, compared with infants vaccinated at age 9 or 12 months (137,138). However, markers of cell-mediated immune response to measles vaccine were equivalent when infants were vaccinated at age 6, 9, and 12 months, regardless of presence of passive antibodies (139).

Although the cell-mediated immune response to the first dose of measles vaccine alone might not be protective, it might prime the humoral response to the second dose (140). Data indicate that revaccination of children first vaccinated as early as age 6 months will result in vaccine-induced immunity, although the response might be associated with a lower antibody titer than titers of children vaccinated at age 9 or 12 months (139).

One dose of measles-containing vaccine administered at age 12 months was approximately 94% effective in preventing measles (range: 39%98%) in studies conducted in the WHO Region of the Americas (141,142). Measles outbreaks among populations that have received 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine are uncommon. The effectiveness of 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine was 99% in two studies conducted in the United States and 67%, 85%94%, and 100% in three studies in Canada (142146). The range in 2-dose vaccine effectiveness in the Canadian studies can be attributed to extremely small numbers (i.e., in the study with a 2-dose vaccine effectiveness of 67%, one 2-dose vaccinated person with measles and one unvaccinated person with measles were reported [145]). This range of effectiveness also can be attributed to age at vaccination (i.e., the 85% vaccine effectiveness represented children vaccinated at age 12 months, whereas the 94% vaccine effectiveness represented children vaccinated at age 15 months [146]). Furthermore, two studies found the incremental effectiveness of 2 doses was 89% and 94%, compared with 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine (145,147). Similar estimates of vaccine effectiveness have been reported from Australia and Europe (Table 1) (141).

Both serologic and epidemiologic evidence indicate that measles-containing vaccines induce long lasting immunity in most persons (148). Approximately 95% of vaccinated persons examined 11 years after initial vaccination and 15 years after the second dose of MMR (containing the Enders-Edmonston strain) vaccine had detectable antibodies to measles (149152). In one study among 25 age-appropriately vaccinated children aged 4 through 6 years who had both low-level neutralizing antibodies and specific IgG antibodies by EIA before revaccination with MMR vaccine, 21 (84%) developed an anamnestic immune response upon revaccination; none developed IgM antibodies, indicating some level of immunity persisted (153).

The rubella component of the combination vaccines that are currently distributed in the United States was licensed in 1979 and contains the live Wistar RA 27/3 vaccine strain. The vaccine is prepared in human diploid cell culture and replaced previous vaccines (HPV-77 and Cendehill) because it induces a higher and more persistent antibody response and is associated with fewer adverse events (154158).

Rubella vaccination induces both humoral and cellular immunity. Approximately 95% of susceptible persons aged 12 months developed serologic evidence of immunity to rubella after vaccination with a single dose of rubella vaccine containing the RA 27/3 strain (Table 1) (127,154,157164). After a second dose of MMR vaccine, approximately 99% had detectable rubella antibody and approximately 60% had a fourfold increase in titer (165167).

Outbreaks of rubella in populations vaccinated with the rubella RA 27/3 vaccine strains are rare. Available studies demonstrate that vaccines containing the rubella RA 27/3 strain are approximately 97% effective in preventing clinical disease after a single dose (range: 94%100%) (Table 1) (168170).

Follow-up studies indicate that 1 dose of rubella vaccine can provide long lasting immunity. The majority of persons had detectable rubella antibodies up to 16 years after 1 dose of rubella-containing vaccine, but antibody levels decreased over time (165,171174). Although levels of vaccine-induced rubella antibodies might decrease over time, data from surveillance of rubella and CRS suggest that waning immunity with increased susceptibility to rubella disease does not occur. Among persons with 2 doses, approximately 91%100% had detectable antibodies 12 to 15 years after receiving the second dose (150,165).

The mumps component of the vaccine available in the United States contains the live attenuated mumps Jeryl-Lynn vaccine strain. It was developed using an isolate from a child with mumps and passaged in embryonated hens' eggs and chick embryo cell cultures (175). The vaccine produces a subclinical, noncommunicable infection with very few side effects.

Approximately 94% of infants and children develop detectable mumps antibodies after vaccination with MMR vaccine (range: 89%97%) (Table 1) (127,157,176184). However, vaccination induces relatively low levels of antibodies compared with natural infection (185,186). Among persons who received a second dose of MMR vaccine, most mounted a secondary immune response, approximately 50% had a fourfold increase in antibody titers, and the proportion with low or undetectable titers was significantly reduced from 20% before vaccination with a second dose to 4% at 6 months post vaccination (187189). Although antibody measurements are often used as a surrogate measure of immunity, no serologic tests are available for mumps that consistently and reliably predict immunity. The immune response to mumps vaccination probably involves both the humoral and cellular immune response, but no definitive correlates of protection have been identified.

Clinical studies conducted before vaccine licensure in approximately 7,000 children found a single dose of mumps vaccine to be approximately 95% effective in preventing mumps disease (186,190,191). However, vaccine effectiveness estimates have been lower in postlicensure studies. In the United States, mumps vaccine effectiveness has been estimated to be between 81% and 91% in junior high and high school settings (192197), and between 64% and 76% among household or close contacts for 1 dose of mumps-containing vaccine (196,198). Population and school-based studies conducted in Europe and Canada report comparable estimates for vaccine effectiveness (49%92%) (199210).

Fewer studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of 2 doses of mumps-containing vaccine. In the United States, outbreaks among populations with high 2-dose coverage found 2 doses of mumps-containing vaccine to be 80%92% effective in preventing clinical disease (198,211). In the 1988 through 1989 outbreak among junior high school students, the risk for mumps was five times higher for students who received 1 dose compared with students who received 2 doses (195). Population and school-based studies in Europe and Canada estimate 2 doses of mumps-containing vaccine to be 66%95% effective (Table 1) (201204,208210). Despite relatively high 2-dose vaccine effectiveness, high 2-dose vaccine coverage might not be sufficient to prevent all outbreaks (6,91,212).

Studies indicate that 1 dose of MMR vaccine can provide persistent antibodies to mumps. The majority of persons (70%99%) examined approximately 10 years after initial vaccination had detectable mumps antibodies (187189). In addition, 70% of adults who were vaccinated in childhood had T-lymphocyte immunity to mumps compared with 80% of adults who acquired natural infection in childhood (213). Similarly, in 2-dose recipients, mumps antibodies were detectable in the majority of persons (74%95%) followed over 12 years after receipt of a second dose of MMR vaccine, but antibody levels declined with time (150,187). Among vaccine recipients who do not have detectable mumps antibodies, mumps antigen-specific lymphoproliferative responses have been detected, but their role in protection against mumps disease is not clear (214,215).

For measles, evidence of the effectiveness of MMR or measles vaccine administered as postexposure prophylaxis is limited and mixed (216222). Effectiveness might depend on timing of vaccination and the nature of the exposure. If administered within 72 hours of initial measles exposure, MMR vaccine might provide some protection against infection or modify the clinical course of disease (216219,222).

Several published studies have compared attack rates among persons who received MMR or single antigen measles vaccine (without gamma globulin) as postexposure prophylaxis with those who remained unvaccinated after exposure to measles. Postexposure prophylaxis with MMR vaccine appears to be effective if the vaccine is administered within 3 days of exposure to measles in "limited" contact settings (e.g., schools, childcare, and medical offices) (218,222). Postexposure prophylaxis does not appear to be effective in settings with intense, prolonged, close contact, such as households and smaller childcare facilities, even when the dose is administered within 72 hours of rash onset, because persons in these settings are often exposed for long durations during the prodromal period when the index patient is infectious (219221). However, these household studies are limited by number of persons receiving post-exposure prophylaxis (i.e., less than 10 persons were given MMR vaccine as postexposure prophylaxis within 72 hours of rash onset in each of the cited studies) (219221). Revaccination within 72 hours of exposure of those who have received 1 dose before exposure also might prevent disease (223). For rubella and mumps, postexposure MMR vaccination has not been shown to prevent or alter the clinical severity of disease.

Data on use and effectiveness of a third dose of MMR vaccine for mumps outbreak control are limited. A study among a small number of seronegative college students who had 2 documented doses of MMR vaccine demonstrated that a third dose of MMR vaccine resulted in a rapid mumps virus IgG response. Of 17 participants, a total of 14 (82%) were IgG positive at 710 days after revaccination, suggesting that previously vaccinated persons administered a third dose of MMR vaccine had the capacity to mount a rapid anamnestic immune response that could possibly boost immunity to protective levels (224). In 2010, in collaboration with local health departments, CDC conducted two Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved studies to evaluate the effect of a third dose of MMR vaccine during mumps outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations in Orange County, New York (>94% 2-dose coverage among 2,688 students attending private school in grades 6 through12) and Guam (95% 2-dose coverage among 3,364 students attending public primary and middle school in grades 4 through 8).

In Orange County, New York, a total of 1,755 (81%) eligible students in grades 6 through 12 (ages 11 through 17 years) in three schools received a third dose of MMR vaccine as part of the study (95). Overall attack rates declined 76% in the village after the intervention, with the greatest decline among those aged 11 through 17 years targeted for vaccination (with a significant decline of 96% postintervention compared with preintervention). The 96% decline in attack rates in this age group was significantly greater than the declines in other age groups that did not receive the third dose intervention (95). However, the intervention was conducted after the outbreak started to decline. Because of the high rate of vaccine uptake and small number of cases observed in the 2242 days after vaccination, the study could not directly evaluate the effectiveness of a third dose.

During a mumps outbreak in Guam in 2010, a total of 3,239 eligible children aged 9 through 14 years in seven schools were offered a third dose of MMR vaccine (96). Of the eligible children, 1,067 (33%) received a third dose of MMR vaccine. More than one incubation period after the third dose intervention, students who had 3 doses of MMR vaccine had a 2.6-fold lower mumps attack rate compared with students who had 2 doses of MMR vaccine (0.9 per 1,000 versus 2.4 per 1,000), but the difference was not statistically significant (Relative Risk [RR] = 0.40, 95% Confidence interval [CI] = 0.053.4, p = 0.67). The intervention was conducted after the outbreak started to decline and during the week before the end of the school year, which limited the ability to evaluate effectiveness of the intervention.

Data are insufficient to recommend for or against the use of a third dose of MMR vaccine for mumps outbreak control. CDC has issued guidance for consideration for use of a third dose in specifically identified target populations along with criteria for public health departments to consider for decision making (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt09-mumps.html).

Before the availability of effective ART, responses to MMR vaccine among persons with HIV infection were suboptimal. Although response to revaccination varied, it generally was poor (225,226). In addition, measles antibodies appear to decline more rapidly in children with HIV infection than in children without HIV infection (227,228).

Memory B cell counts and function appear to be normal in HIV-infected children who are started on effective ART early (aged <1 year), and responses to measles and rubella vaccination appear to be adequate. Measles antibody titers were higher in HIV-infected children who started effective ART early compared with HIV-infected children who started effective ART later in life (229). Likewise, vaccinated HIV-infected children who initiated effective ART before vaccination had rubella antibody responses similar to those observed in HIV-uninfected children (230).

Despite evidence of immune reconstitution, effective ART does not appear to reliably restore immunity from previous vaccinations. Perinatally HIV-infected youth who received MMR vaccine before effective ART might have increased susceptibility to measles, mumps, and rubella compared with HIV-exposed but uninfected persons. Approximately 45%65% of previously vaccinated HIV-infected children had detectable antibodies to measles after initiation of effective ART, 55%80% had detectable antibodies to rubella, and 52%59% had detectable antibodies to mumps (231235). However, revaccination with MMR vaccine after initiation of effective ART increased the proportion of HIV-infected children with detectable antibodies to measles, rubella, and mumps (64%90% for measles, 80%100% for rubella, and 78% for mumps) (230,234,236240). Although, data on duration of response to revaccination on effective ART are limited, the majority of children had detectable antibodies to measles (73%85%), rubella (79%), and mumps (61%) 14 years after revaccination (234,238,240).

The lyophilized live MMR vaccine and MMRV vaccine should be reconstituted and administered as recommended by the manufacturer (241,242). Both vaccines available in the United States should be administered subcutaneously. Although both vaccines must be protected from light, which might inactivate the vaccine viruses, the two vaccines have different storage requirements (Table 2). Administration of improperly stored vaccine might fail to provide protection against disease. The diluent can be stored in the refrigerator or at room temperature but should not be allowed to freeze.

MMR vaccine is supplied in lyophilized form and must be stored at 50C to 8C (58F to 46F) and protected from light at all times. The vaccine in the lyophilized form can be stored in the freezer. Reconstituted MMR vaccine should be used immediately or stored in a dark place at 2C to 8C (36F to 46F) for up to 8 hours and should not be frozen or exposed to freezing temperatures (241).

MMRV vaccine is supplied in a lyophilized frozen form that should be stored at 50C to -15C (58F to 5F) in a reliable freezer. Reconstituted vaccine can be stored at room temperature between 20C to 25C (68F to 77F), protected from light for up to 30 minutes. Reconstituted MMRV vaccine must be discarded if not used within 30 minutes and should not be frozen (242).

Before administering MMR or MMRV vaccine, providers should consult the package insert for precautions, warnings, and contraindications (241,242).

Contraindications for MMR and MMRV vaccines include history of anaphylactic reactions to neomycin, history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine, pregnancy, and immunosuppression.

History of anaphylactic reactions to neomycin. MMR and MMRV vaccine contain trace amounts of neomycin; therefore, persons who have experienced anaphylactic reactions to topically or systemically administered neomycin should not receive these vaccines. However, neomycin allergy usually manifests as a delayed type or cell-mediated immune response (i.e., a contact dermatitis) rather than as anaphylaxis. In persons who have such sensitivity, the adverse reaction to the neomycin in the vaccine is an erythematous, pruritic nodule or papule appearing 4872 hours after vaccination (243). A history of contact dermatitis to neomycin is not a contraindication to receiving MMR-containing vaccine.

History of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine. MMR and MMRV vaccine should not be administered to persons who have experienced severe allergic reactions to a previous dose of measles-, mumps-, rubella-, or varicella (for MMRV vaccine)-containing vaccine or to a vaccine component. Although measles and mumps components of the vaccine are grown in chick embryo fibroblast tissue culture, allergy to egg is not a contraindication to vaccination. Among persons who are allergic to eggs, the risk for serious allergic reactions, such as anaphylaxis after administration of MMR vaccine, is exceedingly low (i.e., at least 99% of children with challenge-proved egg allergy can receive this vaccine in one subcutaneous dose without severe anaphylactic reactions [CI = 99%100%]) (244). Skin testing with vaccine is not predictive of allergic reaction to vaccination (244246). Therefore, skin testing is not required before administering MMR or MMRV vaccines to persons who are allergic to eggs. The rare serious allergic reactions after measles or mumps vaccination or MMR vaccination are not believed to be caused by egg antigens, but by other components of the vaccine (247249)

Pregnancy. MMR vaccines should not be administered to women known to be pregnant or attempting to become pregnant. Because of the theoretical risk to the fetus when the mother receives a live virus vaccine, women should be counseled to avoid becoming pregnant for 28 days after receipt of MMR vaccine (2). If the vaccine is inadvertently administered to a pregnant woman or a pregnancy occurs within 28 days of vaccination, she should be counseled about the theoretical risk to the fetus. The theoretical maximum risk for CRS after the administration of rubella RA 27/3 vaccine on the basis of the 95% CI of the binomial distribution with 144 observations in one study was estimated to be 2.6%, and the observed risk was 0% (250). Other reports have documented no cases of CRS among approximately 1,000 live-born infants of susceptible women who were vaccinated inadvertently with the rubella RA 27/3 vaccine while pregnant or just before conception (251257). Of these, approximately 100 women were known to be vaccinated within 1 week before to 4 weeks after conception (251,252), the period presumed to be the highest risk for viremia and fetal malformations. These figures are considerably lower than the 20% risk associated with wild rubella virus infection of mothers during the first trimester of pregnancy with wild rubella virus or the risk for non-CRS-induced congenital defects in pregnancy (250). Thus, MMR vaccination during pregnancy should not be considered an indication for termination of pregnancy.

MMR vaccine can be administered safely to children or other persons without evidence of immunity to measles, mumps, or rubella and who have pregnant household contacts to help protect these pregnant women from exposure to wild rubella virus. No reports of transmission of measles or mumps vaccine virus exist from vaccine recipients to susceptible contacts; although small amounts of rubella vaccine virus are detected in the noses or throats of most rubella susceptible persons 7 to 28 days post-vaccination, no documented confirmed cases of transmission of rubella vaccine virus have been reported.

Immunosuppression. MMR and MMRV vaccine should not be administered to 1) persons with primary or acquired immunodeficiency, including persons with immunosuppression associated with cellular immunodeficiencies, hypogammaglobulinemia, dysgammaglobulinemia and AIDS or severe immunosuppression associated with HIV infection; 2) persons with blood dyscrasias, leukemia, lymphomas of any type, or other malignant neoplasms affecting the bone marrow or lymphatic system; 3) persons who have a family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency in first-degree relatives (e.g., parents and siblings), unless the immune competence of the potential vaccine recipient has been substantiated clinically or verified by a laboratory; or 4) persons receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy, including corticosteroids 2 mg/kg of body weight or 20 mg/day of prednisone or equivalent for persons who weigh >10 kg, when administered for 2 weeks (258). Persons with HIV infection who do not have severe immunosuppression should receive MMR vaccine, but not MMRV vaccine (see subsection titled Persons with HIV Infection). Measles inclusion body encephalitis has been reported after administration of MMR vaccine to immunosuppressed persons, as well as after natural measles infection with wild type virus (see section titled Safety of MMR and MMRV Vaccines) (259261).

Precautions for MMR and MMRV vaccines include recent (11 months) receipt of an antibody-containing blood product, concurrent moderate or severe illness with or without fever, history of thrombocytopenia or thrombocytopenic purpura, and tuberculin skin testing. If a tuberculin test is to be performed, it should be administered either any time before, simultaneously with, or at least 46 weeks after administration of MMR or MMRV vaccine. An additional precaution for MMRV vaccine includes persons with a personal or family history of seizures of any etiology.

Recent (11 months) receipt of antibody-containing blood product. Receipt of antibody-containing blood products (e.g., IG, whole blood, or packed red blood cells) might interfere with the serologic response to measles and rubella vaccine for variable periods, depending on the dose of IG administered (262). The effect of IG-containing preparations on the response to mumps vaccine is unknown.

MMR vaccine should be administered to persons who have received an IG preparation only after the recommended intervals have elapsed (258). However, postpartum administration of MMR vaccine to women who lack presumptive evidence of immunity to rubella should not be delayed because anti-Rho(D) IG (human) or any other blood product were received during the last trimester of pregnancy or at delivery. These women should be vaccinated immediately after delivery and tested at least 3 months later to ensure that they have presumptive evidence of immunity to rubella and measles.

Moderate or severe illness with or without fever. Vaccination of persons with concurrent moderate or severe illness, including untreated, active tuberculosis, should be deferred until they have recovered. This precaution avoids superimposing any adverse effects of the vaccine on the underlying illness or mistakenly attributing a manifestation of the underlying illness to the vaccine. The decision to vaccinate or postpone vaccination depends largely on the cause of the illness and the severity of symptoms. MMR vaccine can be administered to children who have mild illness, with or without low-grade fever, including mild upper respiratory infections, diarrhea, and otitis media. Data indicate that seroconversion is not affected by concurrent or recent mild illness (263265). Physicians should be alert to the vaccine-associated temperature elevations that might occur predominately in the second week after vaccination, especially with the first dose of MMRV vaccine.

Persons being treated for tuberculosis have not experienced exacerbations of the disease when vaccinated with MMR vaccine. Although no studies have been reported concerning the effect of MMR or MMRV vaccines on persons with untreated tuberculosis, a theoretical basis exists for concern that measles vaccine might exacerbate tuberculosis. Consequently, before administering MMR vaccine to persons with untreated active tuberculosis, initiating antituberculous therapy is advisable. Testing for latent tuberculosis infection is not a prerequisite for routine vaccination with MMR vaccine.

History of thrombocytopenia or thrombocytopenic purpura. Persons who have a history of thrombocytopenia or thrombocytopenic purpura might be at increased risk for developing clinically significant thrombocytopenia after MMR or MMRV vaccination. Persons with a history of thrombocytopenia have experienced recurrences after MMR vaccination (266,267), whereas others have not had a repeat episode after MMR vaccination (268270). In addition, persons who developed thrombocytopenia with a previous dose might develop thrombocytopenia with a subsequent dose of MMR vaccine (271,272). However, among 33 children who were admitted for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura before receipt of a second dose of MMR vaccine, none had a recurrence within 6 weeks of the second MMR vaccine (273). Serologic evidence of immunity can be sought to determine whether or not an additional dose of MMR or MMRV vaccine is needed.

Tuberculin testing. MMR vaccine might interfere with the response to a tuberculin skin test, resulting in a temporary depression of tuberculin skin sensitivity (274276). Therefore, if a tuberculin skin test is to be performed, it should be administered either any time before, simultaneously with, or at least 46 weeks after MMR or MMRV vaccine. As with the tuberculin skin tests, live virus vaccines also might affect tuberculosis interferon-gamma release assay (IGRAs) test results. However, the effect of live virus vaccination on IGRAs has not been studied. Until additional information is available, IGRA testing in the context of live virus vaccine administration should be done either on the same day as vaccination with live-virus vaccine or 46 weeks after the administration of the live-virus vaccine.

Personal or family history of seizures of any etiology. A personal or family (i.e., sibling or parent) history of seizures of any etiology is a precaution for the first dose of MMRV but not MMR vaccination. Studies suggest that children who have a personal or family history of febrile seizures or family history of epilepsy are at increased risk for febrile seizures compared with children without such histories. In one study, the risk difference of febrile seizure within 14 days of MMR vaccination for children aged 15 to 17 months with a personal history of febrile seizures was 19.5 per 1,000 (CI = 16.1 23.6) and for siblings of children with a history of febrile seizures was four per 1,000 (CI = 2.95.4) compared with unvaccinated children of the same age (277). In another study, the match adjusted odds ratio for children with a family history of febrile seizures was 4.8 (CI = 1.318.6) compared with children without a family history of febrile seizures (278). For the first dose of measles vaccine, children with a personal or family history of seizures of any etiology generally should be vaccinated with MMR vaccine because the risks for using MMRV vaccine in this group of children generally outweigh the benefits.

MMR vaccine generally is well-tolerated and rarely associated with serious adverse events. MMR vaccine might cause fever (<15%), transient rashes (5%), transient lymphadenopathy (5% of children and 20% of adults), or parotitis (<1%) (160,163,279283). Febrile reactions usually occur 712 days after vaccination and generally last 12 days (280). The majority of persons with fever are otherwise asymptomatic. Four adverse events (i.e., coryza, cough, pharyngitis, and headache) after revaccination were found to be significantly lower with a second dose of MMR vaccine, and six adverse events (i.e., conjunctivitis, nausea, vomiting, lymphadenopathy, joint pain, and swollen jaw) had no significant change compared with the prevaccination baseline in school-aged children (284).

Expert committees at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed evidence concerning the causal relation between MMR vaccination and various adverse events (285289). Their causality was assessed on the basis of epidemiologic evidence derived from studies of populations, as well as mechanistic evidence derived primarily from biologic and clinical studies in animals and humans; risk was not quantified. IOM determined that evidence supports a causal relation between MMR vaccination and anaphylaxis, febrile seizures, thrombocytopenic purpura, transient arthralgia, and measles inclusion body encephalitis in persons with demonstrated immunodeficiencies.

Anaphylaxis. Immediate anaphylactic reactions after MMR vaccination are rare (1.814.4 per million doses) (290293). Although measles- and mumps-containing vaccines are grown in tissue from chick embryos, the rare serious allergic reactions after MMR vaccination are not believed to be caused by egg antigens but by other components of the vaccine, such as gelatin or neomycin (247249).

Febrile seizures. MMR vaccination might cause febrile seizures. The risk for such seizures is approximately one case for every 3,000 to 4,000 doses of MMR vaccine administered (294,295). Children with a personal or family history of febrile seizures or family history of epilepsy might be at increased risk for febrile seizures after MMR vaccination (277,278). The febrile seizures typically occur 614 days after vaccination and do not appear to be associated with any long-term sequelae (294297). An approximate twofold increased risk exists for febrile seizures among children aged 12 to 23 months who received the first dose of MMRV vaccine compared with children who received MMR and varicella vaccines separately. One additional febrile seizure occurred 5 through 12 days after vaccination per 2,300 to 2,600 children who received the first dose of MMRV vaccine compared with children who received the first dose of MMR and varicella vaccine separately but at the same visit (298,299). No increased risk for febrile seizures was observed after vaccination with MMRV vaccine in children aged 4 through 6 years (300). For additional details, see ACIP recommendations on the use of combination MMRV vaccine (126).

Thrombocytopenic purpura. Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), a disorder affecting blood platelet count, might be idiopathic or associated with a number of viral infections. ITP after receipt of live attenuated measles vaccine and wild type measles infections is usually self-limited and not life threatening; however, complications of ITP might include severe bleeding requiring blood transfusion (267,268,270). The risk for ITP increases during the 6 weeks after MMR vaccination, with one study estimating one case per 40,000 doses (270). The risk for thrombocytopenia after MMR vaccination is much less than after natural infection with rubella (one case per 3,000 infections) (56). On the basis of case reports, the risk for MMR vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia might be increased for persons who previously have had ITP (see Precautions).

Arthralgia and arthritis. Joint symptoms are associated with the rubella component of MMR vaccine (301). Among persons without rubella immunity who receive rubella-containing vaccine, arthralgia and transient arthritis occur more frequently among adults than children, and more frequently among postpubertal females than males (302,303). Acute arthralgia or arthritis are rare among children who receive RA 27/3 vaccine (160,303). In contrast, arthralgia develops among approximately 25% of nonimmune postpubertal females after vaccination with rubella RA 27/3 vaccine, and approximately 10% to 30% have acute arthritis-like signs and symptoms (154,160,282,301). Arthralgia or arthritis generally begin 13 weeks after vaccination, usually are mild and not incapacitating, lasts about 2 days, and rarely recur (160,301,303,304).

Measles inclusion body encephalitis. Measles inclusion body encephalitis is a complication of measles infection that occurs in young persons with defective cellular immunity from either congenital or acquired causes. The complications develop within 1 year after initial measles infection and the mortality rate is high. Three published reports in persons with immune deficiencies described measles inclusion body encephalitis after measles vaccination, documented by intranuclear inclusions corresponding to measles virus or the isolation of measles virus from the brain among vaccinated persons (259261,289). The time from vaccination to development of measles inclusion body encephalitis for these cases was 49 months, consistent with development of measles inclusion body encephalitis after infection with wild measles virus (305). In one case, the measles vaccine strain was identified (260).

Other possible adverse events. IOM concluded that the body of evidence favors rejection of a causal association between MMR vaccine and risk for autistic spectrum disorders (ASD), including autism, inflammatory bowel diseases, and type 1 diabetes mellitus. In addition, the available evidence was not adequate to accept or reject a causal relation between MMR vaccine and the following conditions: acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, afebrile seizures, brachial neuritis, chronic arthralgia, chronic arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic inflammatory disseminated polyneuropathy, encephalopathy, fibromyalgia, Guillain-Barr syndrome, hearing loss, hepatitis, meningitis, multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica, optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome, or radiculoneuritis and other neuropathies.

Short-term safety of administration of a third dose of MMR vaccine was evaluated following vaccination clinics during two mumps outbreaks among 2,130 persons aged 9 through 21 years (96,306). Although these studies did not include a control group, few adverse events were reported after administration of a third dose of MMR vaccine (7% in Orange County, New York and 6% in Guam). The most commonly reported adverse events were pain, redness, or swelling at the injection site (2%4%); joint or muscle aches (2%3%); and dizziness or lightheadedness (2%). No serious adverse events were reported in either study.

HIV-infected persons are at increased risk for severe complications if infected with measles (16,307310), and several severe and fatal measles cases have been reported in HIV-infected children after vaccination, including progressive measles pneumonitis in a person with HIV infection and severe immunosuppression who received MMR vaccine (311), and several deaths after measles vaccination among persons with severe immunosuppression unrelated to HIV infection (312314). No serious or unusual adverse events have been reported after measles vaccination among persons with HIV infection who did not have evidence of severe immunosuppression (315320). Severe immunosuppression is defined as CD4+ T-lymphocyte percentages <15% at any age or CD4 count <200 lymphocytes/mm3 for persons aged >5 years (321,322). Furthermore, no serious adverse events have been reported in several studies in which MMR vaccine was administered to a small number of children on ART with histories of immunosuppression (231,233,238). MMR vaccine is not recommended for persons with HIV infection who have evidence of severe immunosuppression, and MMRV vaccine is not approved for use in any persons with HIV infection.

Clinically significant adverse events that arise after vaccination should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) at http://vaers.hhs.gov/esub/index. VAERS is a postmarketing safety surveillance program that collects information about adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of vaccines licensed for use in the United States.

Reports can be filed securely online, by mail, or by fax. A VAERS form can be downloaded from the VAERS website or requested by e-mail (info@vaers.org), telephone (800-822-7967), or fax (877-721-0366). Additional information on VAERS or vaccine safety is available at http://vaers.hhs.gov/about/index or by calling telephone 800-822-7967.

See original here:
Prevention of Measles, Rubella, Congenital Rubella ...

Read More...

10 Benefits to Drinking Warm Lemon Water Every Morning …

Friday, November 4th, 2016

Something that has been very important for my body during this 7-Day Spring Cleanse, but has also been a part of my daily routine for a few months now, is drinking warm lemon water. I have started (almost) every day with a glass of warm lemon water and it has made a huge differences for me. Warm lemon water in the morning helps kickstart the digestion process for the day. According to Ayurvedic philosophy, choices that you make regarding your daily routine either build up resistance to disease or tear it down. Ayurveda invites us to get a jump-start on the day by focusing on morning rituals that work to align the body with natures rhythms, balance the doshas and foster self-esteem alongside self-discipline.

There are many health benefits of lemons that have been known for centuries. The two biggest are lemons strong antibacterial, antiviral, and immune-boosting powers and their use as a weight loss aid because lemon juice is a digestive aid and liver cleanser. Lemons contain many substancesnotably citric acid, calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, bioflavonoids, pectin, and limonenethat promote immunity and fight infection.

You should be using purified water and it should be lukewarm not scalding hot. You want to avoid ice cold water, since that can be a lot for your body to process and it takes more energy to process ice cold water than the warm. Always use fresh lemons, organic if possible, never bottled lemon juice. I squeeze 1/2 a lemon with each glass and I drink it down first thing before I eat a single thing, or workout, etc.

BONUS: try adding freshly grated ginger or a little cayenne for a boost.

1) Aids Digestion. Lemon juice flushes out unwanted materials and toxins from the body. Its atomic composition is similar to saliva and the hydrochloric acid of digestive juices. It encourages the liver to produce bile which is an acid that is required for digestion. Lemons are also high in minerals and vitamins and help loosen ama, or toxins, in the digestive tract. The digestive qualities of lemon juice help to relieve symptoms of indigestion, such as heartburn, belching and bloating. The American Cancer Society actually recommends offering warm lemon water to cancer sufferers to help stimulate bowel movements.

2) Cleanses Your System / is a Diuretic. Lemon juice helps flush out unwanted materials in part because lemons increase the rate of urination in the body. Therefore toxins are released at a faster rate which helps keep your urinary tract healthy. The citric acid in lemons helps maximize enzyme function, which stimulates the liver and aids in detoxification.

3) Boosts Your Immune System. Lemons are high in vitamin C, which is great for fighting colds. Theyre high in potassium, which stimulates brain and nerve function. Potassium also helps control blood pressure. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) found in lemons demonstrates anti-inflammatory effects, and is used as complementary support for asthma and other respiratory symptoms plus it enhances iron absorption in the body; iron plays an important role in immune function. Lemons also contain saponins, which show antimicrobial properties that may help keep cold and flu at bay. Lemons also reduce the amount of phlegm produced by the body.

4) Balances pH Levels. Lemons are one of the most alkalizing foods for the body. Sure, they are acidic on their own, but inside our bodies theyre alkaline (the citric acid does not create acidity in the body once metabolized). Lemons contain both citric and ascorbic acid, weak acids easily metabolized from the body allowing the mineral content of lemons to help alkalize the blood. Disease states only occur when the body pH is acidic.Drinking lemon water regularly can help to remove overall acidity in the body, including uric acid in the joints, which is one of the primary causes of pain and inflammation.

5) Clears Skin.The vitamin C component as well as other antioxidants helps decrease wrinkles and blemishes and it helps to combat free radical damage. Vitamin C is vital for healthy glowing skin while its alkaline nature kills some types of bacteria known to cause acne. It can actually be applied directly to scars or age spots to help reduce their appearance. Since lemon water purges toxins from your blood, it would also be helping to keep your skin clear of blemishes from the inside out. The vitamin C contained in the lemon rejuvenates the skin from within your body.

6) Energizes You and Enhances Your Mood. The energy a human receives from food comes from the atoms and molecules in your food. A reaction occurs when the positive charged ions from food enter the digestive tract and interact with the negative charged enzymes. Lemon is one of the few foods that contain more negative charged ions, providing your body with more energy when it enters the digestive tract. The scent of lemon also has mood enhancing and energizing properties. The smell of lemon juice can brighten your mood and help clear your mind. Lemon can also help reduce anxiety and depression.

7) Promotes Healing. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C), found in abundance in lemons, promotes wound healing, and is an essential nutrient in the maintenance of healthy bones, connective tissue, and cartilage. As noted previously, vitamin C also displays anti-inflammatory properties. Combined, vitamin C is an essential nutrient in the maintenance of good health and recovery from stress and injury.

8) Freshens Breath.Besides fresher breath, lemons have been known to help relieve tooth pain and gingivitis. Be aware that citric acid can erode tooth enamel, so you should be mindful of this. No not brush your teeth just after drinking your lemon water. It is best to brush your teeth first, then drink your lemon water, or wait a significant amount of time after to brush your teeth. Additionally, you can rinse your mouth with purified water after you finish your lemon water.

9) Hydrates Your Lymph System.Warm water and lemon juice supports the immune system by hydrating and replacing fluids lost by your body. When your body is deprived of water, you can definitely feel the side effects, which include: feeling tired, sluggish, decreased immune function, constipation, lack of energy, low/high blood pressure, lack of sleep, lack of mental clarity and feeling stressed, just to name a few.

10) Aids in Weight Loss. Lemons are high in pectin fiber, which helps fight hunger cravings. Studies have shown people who maintain a more alkaline diet, do in fact lose weight faster. I personally find myself making better choices throughout the day, if I start my day off right, by making a health conscious choice to drink warm lemon water first thing every morning.

Do you drink warm lemon water every morning? What are your favorite benefits?

I always zest my lemons before I juice them for my daily warm lemon water. I keep a container in the freezer and I just keep adding to it. Its great to toss into pasta dishes, in salad dressings, etc.

Tagged as: 10 Benefits to Drinking Warm Lemon Water Every Morning, ayurveda, benefits, breath, energy, fresh, healing, Health, lemon, lemon juice, lymph, mood enhancing, pH balance, reasons to drink warm lemon water, skin, tasty yummies, weight loss

Read the rest here:
10 Benefits to Drinking Warm Lemon Water Every Morning ...

Read More...

Page 53«..1020..52535455..60..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick