Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T12:05:39.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The role of chemokines and their receptors during protist parasite infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2016

FIONA M. MENZIES*
Affiliation:
Infection and Microbiology Group, Institute of Biomedical and Environmental Health Research, School of Science and Sport, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK
DAVID MACPHAIL
Affiliation:
Infection and Microbiology Group, Institute of Biomedical and Environmental Health Research, School of Science and Sport, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK
FIONA L. HENRIQUEZ
Affiliation:
Infection and Microbiology Group, Institute of Biomedical and Environmental Health Research, School of Science and Sport, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Infection and Microbiology Group, Institute of Biomedical and Environmental Health Research, School of Science and Sport, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK. E-mail: Fiona.Menzies@uws.ac.uk

Summary

Protists are a diverse collection of eukaryotic organisms that account for a significant global infection burden. Often, the immune responses mounted against these parasites cause excessive inflammation and therefore pathology in the host. Elucidating the mechanisms of both protective and harmful immune responses is complex, and often relies of the use of animal models. In any immune response, leucocyte trafficking to the site of infection, or inflammation, is paramount, and this involves the production of chemokines, small chemotactic cytokines of approximately 8–10 kDa in size, which bind to specific chemokine receptors to induce leucocyte movement. Herein, the scientific literature investigating the role of chemokines in the propagation of immune responses against key protist infections will be reviewed, focussing on Plasmodium species, Toxoplasma gondii, Leishmania species and Cryptosporidium species. Interestingly, many studies find that chemokines can in fact, promote parasite survival in the host, by drawing in leucocytes for spread and further replication. Recent developments in drug targeting against chemokine receptors highlights the need for further understanding of the role played by these proteins and their receptors in many different diseases.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

INTRODUCTION

Parasitic diseases are a global problem for both humans and livestock, causing significant rates of morbidity and mortality, as well as huge economic losses, the full extent of which is often difficult to accurately define. A complete understanding of the nuances of host–pathogen interactions is vital to the process of identifying potential drug or vaccine targets.

The pathology and life cycle of many protist parasitic infections, including malaria and toxoplasmosis is dependent upon the host initiation of an effective innate and adaptive immune response (Esche et al. Reference Esche, Stellato and Beck2005). The trafficking of host leucocytes to the site of infection is highly dependent upon the coordinated and specific production of proteins by the host cells. These small proteins, called chemokines, orchestrate the movement of immune cells, and propagate the inflammatory response, therefore playing crucial roles in the defence against parasites. In addition to this, many parasites can manipulate the immune response to its own benefit, through using host leucocytes for replication and further spread (McGovern and Wilson, Reference McGovern and Wilson2013).

In this review, the role that chemokines play in the delicate interaction between host and protist parasites will be explored. Of particular interest are the causative parasites of malaria, toxoplasmosis, leishmaniasis and cryptosporidiosis, all diseases which are of significant relevance to human health.

WHAT ARE CHEMOKINES?

Chemokines are a complex superfamily of small extracellular signalling proteins (~8–10 kDa), expressed by nucleated cells (Graves and Jiang, Reference Graves and Jiang1995; McColl, Reference McColl2002; Niu et al. Reference Niu, Wang and Fu2011). Members of the chemokine superfamily contain 20–90% sequence homology (Rostene et al. Reference Rostene, Kitabgi and Parsadaniantz2007) and are divided into four main subfamilies, determined by the arrangement of conserved cysteine residues within the chemokine structure as illustrated within Fig. 1. Chemokine-dependant migration is critical for initiating an effective inflammatory immune response, with chemokine production induced in response to pro-inflammatory cytokines during infection (Graves and Jiang, Reference Graves and Jiang1995; Wong and Fish, Reference Wong and Fish2003). While chemokine production is strongly associated with inflammation and leucocyte recruitment, their role extends to various homeostatic and developmental functions, which are achieved through their constitutive production (Sallusto et al. Reference Sallusto, Palermo, Lenig, Miettinen, Matikainen, Julkunen, Forster, Burgstahler, Lipp and Lanzavecchia1999; Raz and Mahabaleshwar, Reference Raz and Mahabaleshwar2009). In addition, some chemokines mainly the CC chemokines CCL20 and CCL28 and the CXC chemokines CXCL6, 9, 10, 11 and 14 are not known to exhibit antimicrobial activity against many Gram-positive and -negative bacteria as well as some fungi as reviewed by Yung and Murphy (Reference Yung and Murphy2012).

Fig. 1. Chemokine superfamily classification. Chemokines are classified based on the arrangement of conserved cysteine motifs (shown in hollow lettering below) in the amino terminus. (A) XC chemokines only contains two conserved cysteine residues. There are only two members of this family in humans (XCL1, XCL2), with both binding the XCR1 receptor. (B) The CC chemokines are defined by having two of the first four conserved cysteine residues adjacent to each other. There are at least 28 known members of this group in humans. (C) The CXC chemokines are so called due to the presence of an amino acid separating the first two of the conserved cysteines. In humans, 17 CXC chemokines have been described. (D) The CX3C chemokine group contains one member, CX3CL1, which binds to the CX3CR1 receptor, and is defined by the presence of three amino acids separating the first two cysteine residues, as well as a mucin-like domain (indicated by grey band).

Chemokines exert their effect on cells through binding chemokine receptors. Chemokine receptors can be described as being either G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) or atypical chemokine receptors (ACKRs) (Bachelerie et al. Reference Bachelerie, Ben-Baruch, Burkhardt, Combadiere, Farber, Graham, Horuk, Sparre-Ulrich, Locati, Luster, Mantovani, Matsushima, Murphy, Nibbs, Nomiyama, Power, Proudfoot, Rosenkilde, Rot, Sozzani, Thelen, Yoshie and Zlotnik2014). These two types differ mainly through the presence of the conserved DRYLAIV motif at the end of transmembrane domain 3 in classical chemokine receptors, but not in ACKRs (Ulvmar et al. Reference Ulvmar, Hub and Rot2011). There are four types of typical, or classical, chemokine receptors: CCR, XCR, CXCR and CX3CR, with their classification being based on the type of chemokine ligands with which they interact (Rajagopalan and Rajarathnam, Reference Rajagopalan and Rajarathnam2006). Chemokine and chemokine receptor interactions are highly complex, exhibiting a great deal of cross-binding and redundancy. These relationships, and the differences between human and mouse chemokine families have previously been reviewed and summarized (Zlotnik and Yoshie, Reference Zlotnik and Yoshie2012).

In addition to these ‘classical’ chemokine receptors, ACKRs have also been identified and well characterized (Nibbs and Graham, Reference Nibbs and Graham2013). These are structurally similar to the typical GPCRs, but lack the ability to couple G-proteins (Ulvmar et al. Reference Ulvmar, Hub and Rot2011). To date, four ACKRs have been described and these have significant effects on immune regulation (Nibbs and Graham, Reference Nibbs and Graham2013). ACKRs bind multiple chemokines, as shown in Table 1, with ACKR2, 3 and 4 all known to have the ability to act as a chemokine scavenger through internalizing and destroying ligands (Luker et al. Reference Luker, Steele, Mihalko, Ray and Luker2010; Comerford and McColl, Reference Comerford and McColl2011; Hoffmann et al. Reference Hoffmann, Muller, Schutz, Penfold, Wong, Schulz and Stumm2012; Nibbs and Graham, Reference Nibbs and Graham2013; Watts et al. Reference Watts, Verkaar, van der Lee, Timmerman, Kuijer, van Offenbeek, van Lith, Smit, Leurs, Zaman and Vischer2013). While ACKR1 can also internalize ligands, it does not destroy them, but aids the process of transcytosis (Rot, Reference Rot2005; Zhao et al. Reference Zhao, Mangalmurti, Xiong, Prakash, Guo, Stolz and Lee2011; Nibbs and Graham, Reference Nibbs and Graham2013).

Table 1. Atypical chemokine receptors (ACKRs) and known ligands in humans

ROLE OF CHEMOKINES IN HOST–PROTIST INTERACTIONS

The generation of chemokine and chemokine receptor knockout mice has been critical for our understanding of the role of individual ligands and receptors in the development and pathology of a number of diseases and infections (Rothenberg, Reference Rothenberg2000). These techniques have allowed for both the in vitro and in vivo monitoring of the host response to parasitic infection. Alteration of the chemokine system often demonstrates its critical role through increases in parasite load, exacerbated symptoms, increased mortality, and decreased immune cell migration. Table 2 demonstrated the breadth of studies utilizing chemokine and chemokine receptor knockout mice to better understand their role in the control and pathogenesis of various protist parasite infections.

Table 2. Chemokine/chemokine receptor knockout mice used in parasite studies

While it is recognized that chemokine production by infected host and bystander cells serve to facilitate a protective immune response, it has also been found that many infections, including the protists detailed herein, can facilitate their own spread throughout the body by inducing chemokine production, which will draw in leucocytes to the site of infection, thereby providing additional cells to be infected. This concept of using host cell to spread is known as the Trojan horse hypothesis and has been shown for Plasmodium spp. (Wykes and Horne-Debets, Reference Wykes and Horne-Debets2012), Toxoplasma gondii (Da Gama et al. Reference Da Gama, Ribeiro-Gomes, Guimaraes and Arnholdt2004; Lambert et al. Reference Lambert, Vutova, Adams, Lore and Barragan2009; Elsheikha and Khan, Reference Elsheikha and Khan2010; Sanecka and Frickel, Reference Sanecka and Frickel2012; Coombes et al. Reference Coombes, Charsar, Han, Halkias, Chan, Koshy, Striepen and Robey2013) and Leishmania spp. (Laskay et al. Reference Laskay, van Zandbergen and Solbach2003; van Zandbergen et al. Reference van Zandbergen, Klinger, Mueller, Dannenberg, Gebert, Solbach and Laskay2004; Shapira and Zinoviev, Reference Shapira and Zinoviev2011) as discussed.

Malaria

Plasmodium is a genus of intracellular apicomplexan protists, which are the causative agent of malaria. While over 100 species of Plasmodium have been identified (Tuteja, Reference Tuteja2007), only five of these cause malaria in humans. These species are Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium ovale, Plasmodium malariae, Plasmodium knowlesi and Plasmodium vivax (Kantele and Jokiranta, Reference Kantele and Jokiranta2011); with P. falciparum infection strongly associated with higher disease severity and mortality.

The life cycle of Plasmodium spp. is complex, with infection acquired by humans through sporozoite transmission from infected female Anopheles mosquitoes during feeding. Sporozoites migrate to and replicate within hepatocytes for ~7–10 days, resulting in merozoite release into the bloodstream (Tuteja, Reference Tuteja2007). The importance of hepatocytes to the Plasmodium life cycle is still not completely elucidated; however, a recent review by Kaushansky and Kappe (Reference Kaushansky and Kappe2015) summarizes key molecular mechanisms thought to support the specific infection of hepatocytes, and the environment provided by hepatocytes, which permits the parasite to transform into the merozoite stage (Kaushansky and Kappe, Reference Kaushansky and Kappe2015). Once released, merozoites infect and asexually replicate within red blood cells, with some merozoites undergoing sexual differentiation (Tuteja, Reference Tuteja2007). These gametocytes are then transmitted to mosquitoes during feeding, with fertilization occurring within the mosquito's gut. The discovery that the blood stage of Plasmodium spp. can infect cells other than erythrocytes, namely plasmacytoid dendritic cells (DCs) (Wykes et al. Reference Wykes, Kay, Manderson, Liu, Brown, Richard, Wipasa, Jiang, Jones, Janse, Waters, Pierce, Miller, Stow and Good2011; Wykes and Horne-Debets, Reference Wykes and Horne-Debets2012), has led researchers to believe that this parasite can adopt the Trojan-horse style of survival and dissemination.

The host immune response to the malarial parasite is a key factor in the development and outcome of the infection. Indeed, as with many infections, the host immune response can control parasitaemia; however, excessive inflammation often leads to infection-associated pathology. Few stages of the Plasmodium spp. life cycle are extracellular, making it much easier for the parasite to evade the host immune system. Upon initial infection, immunity is induced, with subsequent exposures leading to induction of protective mechanisms in the host, such as antibodies against each stage of infection, cytokine production, induction of cytotoxic T cells (Schofield et al. Reference Schofield, Villaquiran, Ferreira, Schellekens, Nussenzweig and Nussenzweig1987) and Th1 responses (Torre et al. Reference Torre, Speranza, Giola, Matteelli, Tambini and Biondi2002; Perez-Mazliah and Langhorne, Reference Perez-Mazliah and Langhorne2014). Interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) has been identified as a key cytokine in the response against malaria infection (Artavanis-Tsakonas and Riley, Reference Artavanis-Tsakonas and Riley2002; McCall and Sauerwein, Reference McCall and Sauerwein2010). Indeed, it has been found that IFN-γ and interleukin (IL)-12 production occurs in a Toll like receptor (TLR)-9 and MyD88-dependant manner, with these cytokines then further enhancing the expression of TLRs by host immune cells (Franklin et al. Reference Franklin, Parroche, Ataide, Lauw, Ropert, de Oliveira, Pereira, Tada, Nogueira, da Silva, Bjorkbacka, Golenbock and Gazzinelli2009). This is one mechanism thought to contribute to the excessive pro-inflammatory response responsible for the symptoms of the infection.

With such a profound immune reaction to the presence of the parasite, the role of chemokines and their receptors in the promotion of inflammation during malarial infection has been explored. A particular focus of many studies has been the development and pathogenesis of cerebral malaria (CM), a complication of P. falciparum infection in humans which results in the obstruction of small blood vessel in the brain with infected erythrocytes, and is often fatal (Hora et al. Reference Hora, Kapoor, Thind and Mishra2016). Clinically, CM is characterized by seizures and loss of consciousness, due to encephalopathy (Newton et al. Reference Newton, Hien and White2000).

One receptor which has been extensively studied in the context of CM is CCR5. CCR5 is expressed by monocytes (Combadiere et al. Reference Combadiere, Ahuja, Tiffany and Murphy1996; Ubogu et al. Reference Ubogu, Callahan, Tucky and Ransohoff2006), activated T cells (Dragic et al. Reference Dragic, Litwin, Allaway, Martin, Huang, Nagashima, Cayanan, Maddon, Koup, Moore and Paxton1996; Ubogu et al. Reference Ubogu, Callahan, Tucky and Ransohoff2006; Jiang et al. Reference Jiang, Zhao, Bao, Xiao and Xiong2009), DCs (Lee et al. Reference Lee, Sharron, Montaner, Weissman and Doms1999) and natural killer (NK) (Khan et al. Reference Khan, Thomas, Moretto, Lee, Islam, Combe, Schwartzman and Luster2006) cells, with ligands including CCL3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 16, and as will be discussed, has been identified as playing key roles in the pathogenesis of several protist infections. CCR5-deficient mice exhibit substantially reduced development of CM in comparison with their wild-type counterparts, with wild-type mice exhibiting higher numbers of CD8+ T cells and both serum levels and splenocyte production of the pro-inflammatory Th1 cytokine tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) also increased (Belnoue et al. Reference Belnoue, Kayibanda, Deschemin, Viguier, Mack, Kuziel and Renia2003b ).

Other chemokine receptors have also been implicated in the pathogenesis of malaria. CCR2 has been shown in murine experimental models to play little role in the development of CM (Belnoue et al. Reference Belnoue, Costa, Vigario, Voza, Gonnet, Landau, Van Rooijen, Mack, Kuziel and Renia2003a ). CCR2-/- mice typically exhibit the inability of monocytes to traffic out of the bone marrow (Serbina and Pamer, Reference Serbina and Pamer2006; Tsou et al. Reference Tsou, Peters, Si, Slaymaker, Aslanian, Weisberg, Mack and Charo2007; Jia et al. Reference Jia, Serbina, Brandl, Zhong, Leiner, Charo and Pamer2008; Shi et al. Reference Shi, Jia, Mendez-Ferrer, Hohl, Serbina, Lipuma, Leiner, Li, Frenette and Pamer2011; Shi and Pamer, Reference Shi and Pamer2011). During experimental Plasmodium chabaudi infection, CCR2-/- mice exhibit prolonged phases of acute parasitaemia when compared to their wild-type counterparts (Sponaas et al. Reference Sponaas, Freitas do Rosario, Voisine, Mastelic, Thompson, Koernig, Jarra, Renia, Mauduit, Potocnik and Langhorne2009). CCL2, a known CCR2 ligand, is a chemoattractant for monocytes and macrophages, and an experimental murine model of malaria utilizing the Plasmodium yoelli nigeriensis strain has shown that production (or overproduction) of this chemokine can contribute to immunopathology and host mortality (Pattaradilokrat et al. Reference Pattaradilokrat, Li, Wu, Qi, Eastman, Zilversmit, Nair, Huaman, Quinones, Jiang, Li, Zhu, Zhao, Kaneko, Long and Su2014).

Another chemokine receptor of importance during CM in humans and mice is that of CXCR3 and its ligands CXCL4, CXCL9 and CXCL10. Indeed, CXCL10 has been highlighted as a potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for CM in humans (Armah et al. Reference Armah, Wilson, Sarfo, Powell, Bond, Anderson, Adjei, Gyasi, Tettey, Wiredu, Tongren, Udhayakumar and Stiles2007; Jain et al. Reference Jain, Armah, Tongren, Ned, Wilson, Crawford, Joel, Singh, Nagpal, Dash, Udhayakumar, Singh and Stiles2008; Lucchi et al. Reference Lucchi, Jain, Wilson, Singh, Udhayakumar and Stiles2011; Wilson et al. Reference Wilson, Jain, Roberts, Lucchi, Joel, Singh, Nagpal, Dash, Udhayakumar, Singh and Stiles2011). In an experimental murine model, using the P. berghei strain, both CXCL9 and CXCL10 were found in the brain at significantly high levels, with infected CXCR3-/- mice exhibiting protection against development of CM (Campanella et al. Reference Campanella, Tager, El Khoury, Thomas, Abrazinski, Manice, Colvin and Luster2008). Subsequent analysis confirmed that these mice had significantly fewer T cells in the brain compared with their wild-type counterparts. Furthermore, CXCL4, a platelet derived chemokine, is elevated in the brains of mice infected with P. berghei, with platelets becoming activated early on in infection and CXCL4 contributing to the development of CM through destruction of the blood–brain barrier (Srivastava et al. Reference Srivastava, Cockburn, Swaim, Thompson, Tripathi, Fletcher, Shirk, Sun, Kowalska, Fox-Talbot, Sullivan, Zavala and Morrell2008). Histological examination of brains from infected CXCL4-/- and CXCR3-/- mice show less cerebral inflammation and damage than their wild-type counterparts, driven by fewer CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the brain (Srivastava et al. Reference Srivastava, Cockburn, Swaim, Thompson, Tripathi, Fletcher, Shirk, Sun, Kowalska, Fox-Talbot, Sullivan, Zavala and Morrell2008).

Toxoplasmosis

Toxoplasma gondii is another Apicomplexan protist, first identified by Nicolle and Manceaux in 1908. This is an intracellular pathogen, which can infect most warm-blooded animals (Dubey, Reference Dubey and S.1996). The infection has a high prevalence in humans, with previous studies identifying an overall seroprevalence of 22·5% for anti-Toxoplasma antibodies in the USA (Jones et al. Reference Jones, Kruszon-Moran, Wilson, McQuillan, Navin and McAuley2001). Despite this high prevalence, many individuals are unaware of their infection status, as a competent immune system has the ability to asymptomatically control this infection (Paspalaki et al. Reference Paspalaki, Mihailidou, Bitsori, Tsagkaraki and Mantzouranis2001). The infection often occurs as a result of ingesting T. gondii bradyzoites (slow, dormant cysts), which may be present in the undercooked meat of an infected animal (Dubey, Reference Dubey2009). In recent times, the ability of T. gondii to be transmitted in the environment and through water sources has been recognized (Jones and Dubey, Reference Jones and Dubey2010). Once ingested, the parasite has the ability to cross the intestinal epithelial barrier and replicate within cells of the lamina propria (Speer and Dubey, Reference Speer and Dubey1998). From here, tachyzoites (the fast, replicating stage) can disseminate to various tissues throughout the body (Barragan and Sibley, Reference Barragan and Sibley2002), such as brain and muscle tissue, where the parasite can exist dormant for long periods of time as cysts (Dubey et al. Reference Dubey, Lindsay and Speer1998).

Toxoplasmosis has the potential to be particularly detrimental in immunocompromised individuals; often causing encephalitis and multiple organ failure (Paspalaki et al. Reference Paspalaki, Mihailidou, Bitsori, Tsagkaraki and Mantzouranis2001). The infection may also occur through congenital transmission; with the severity of symptoms ranging from retinochoroiditis, to hydrocephalus and abortion of the developing foetus (Gilbert et al. Reference Gilbert, Tan, Cliffe, Guy and Stanford2006). The severity of the symptoms is largely dependent on the gestational age of transmission, with early transmission associated with a disease phenotype of a higher severity (Pinard et al. Reference Pinard, Leslie and Irvine2003).

The development of immunity to T. gondii is complex, with most leucocytes involved in some manner (Miller et al. Reference Miller, Boulter, Ikin and Smith2009; Munoz et al. Reference Munoz, Liesenfeld and Heimesaat2011; Coombes and Hunter, Reference Coombes and Hunter2015). The chemokine system has a critical role in the response to the initial stages of T. gondii infection, allowing establishment of an effective innate immune response to the parasite. For example, knockout studies have demonstrated that CCR5 is essential for the recruitment of NK cells and host survival during infection (Khan et al. Reference Khan, Thomas, Moretto, Lee, Islam, Combe, Schwartzman and Luster2006). The CCR5-/- models have identified that without CCR5-mediated NK cell recruitment; there is a reduction in the CCR5 ligands, CCL3, CCL4 and CCL5, as well as reduced IFN-γ production in spleen, lung, liver and small intestine. Together, infected CCR5-/- mice did not exhibit the typical tissue damage as a consequence of excessive inflammation; however, they did have an increased parasite burden (Khan et al. Reference Khan, Thomas, Moretto, Lee, Islam, Combe, Schwartzman and Luster2006).

Interestingly, the parasite can also influence the host immune response through secretion of immunomodulatory proteins, such as Cyclophilin 18 (TgCyp18) and the dense granule protein GRA24. TgCyp18 binds to CCR5 (Aliberti et al. Reference Aliberti, Valenzuela, Carruthers, Hieny, Andersen, Charest, Reis e Sousa, Fairlamb, Ribeiro and Sher2003), as illustrated in Fig. 2A, and acts to mimic the known CCR5-binding chemokines CCL3, CCL4 and CCL5 (Aliberti et al. Reference Aliberti, Valenzuela, Carruthers, Hieny, Andersen, Charest, Reis e Sousa, Fairlamb, Ribeiro and Sher2003; Ibrahim et al. Reference Ibrahim, Xuan and Nishikawa2010). Through stimulating IL-12, TNF-α and nitric oxide production by DCs and macrophages, TgCyp18 can promote Th1 type responses in a CCR5-dependent manner (Aliberti et al. Reference Aliberti, Valenzuela, Carruthers, Hieny, Andersen, Charest, Reis e Sousa, Fairlamb, Ribeiro and Sher2003; Ibrahim et al. Reference Ibrahim, Bannai, Xuan and Nishikawa2009). As illustrated in Fig. 2B, in addition to the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, immune cell recruitment is further promoted through host cell chemokine production, including CCL2, 3, 4 and 5 in response to the parasite. Recruitment of inflammatory monocytes, DCs and NK cells, and induction of Th1 and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells, targets infected cells for destruction, but provides new potential host cells for the parasite.

Fig. 2. Leucocyte trafficking during T. gondii infection. (A) Known CCR5 ligands. (B) Infection of host immune cells results in the production of a number of inflammatory chemokines, which serve to recruit more immune cells. Promotion of a Th1-type response, with the involvement of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells is critical for the destruction of infected host cells.

CCL2 is produced in response to exposure of intestinal cells to the tachyzoite form of the parasite (Rachinel et al. Reference Rachinel, Buzoni-Gatel, Dutta, Mennechet, Luangsay, Minns, Grigg, Tomavo, Boothroyd and Kasper2004; Gopal et al. Reference Gopal, Birdsell and Monroy2011), in particular to the surface protein SAG1 (Brenier-Pinchart et al. Reference Brenier-Pinchart, Villena, Mercier, Durand, Simon, Cesbron-Delauw and Pelloux2006). In addition, the T. gondii dense granule protein GRA24 has been shown to induce CCL2 production by infected host cells, in an infection model utilizing the type II strain Pru (Braun et al. Reference Braun, Brenier-Pinchart, Yogavel, Curt-Varesano, Curt-Bertini, Hussain, Kieffer-Jaquinod, Coute, Pelloux, Tardieux, Sharma, Belrhali, Bougdour and Hakimi2013). CCL3, CCL4 and CCL5 are also produced by intestinal cells (Gopal et al. Reference Gopal, Birdsell and Monroy2011) and blood leucocytes (Bliss et al. Reference Bliss, Marshall, Zhang and Denkers1999) in response to T. gondii tachyzoites. It seems paradoxical that this parasite deliberately triggers the recruitment of cells designed to destroy it, however as previously mentioned, and illustrated in Fig. 2B, this parasite adopts the Trojan-horse method of dissemination to establish infection by attracting further cells to infect (Da Gama et al. Reference Da Gama, Ribeiro-Gomes, Guimaraes and Arnholdt2004; Lambert et al. Reference Lambert, Vutova, Adams, Lore and Barragan2009; Elsheikha and Khan, Reference Elsheikha and Khan2010; Sanecka and Frickel, Reference Sanecka and Frickel2012; Coombes et al. Reference Coombes, Charsar, Han, Halkias, Chan, Koshy, Striepen and Robey2013).

Other chemokine receptor knockout mice have been utilized in murine models of T. gondii infection, as summarized in Table 2, to demonstrate the role of certain cell types in the pathogenesis or control of infection. For example, CCR1-/- mice have defects in neutrophil trafficking, and so use of these mice allowed researchers to dissect the neutrophilic response during early phases of T. gondii infection (Khan et al. Reference Khan, Murphy, Casciotti, Schwartzman, Collins, Gao and Yeaman2001). In addition, the necessity of CCR1 and its ligand CCL3 in driving the recruitment of inflammatory monocytes to the intestine during T. gondii-induced ileitis has been demonstrated through the use of CCR1-/- mice (Schulthess et al. Reference Schulthess, Meresse, Ramiro-Puig, Montcuquet, Darche, Bègue, Ruemmele, Combadière, Di Santo, Buzoni-Gatel and Cerf-Bensussan2012). Moreover, studies using mice deficient in either CCR2 or its ligand CCL2, clearly demonstrated the importance of early monocyte recruitment to the intestine during T. gondii infection, with knockout mice unable to control parasite replication (Dunay et al. Reference Dunay, Damatta, Fux, Presti, Greco, Colonna and Sibley2008). Subsequent studies by the same group confirmed this important role of monocytes, but showed that neutrophil depletion had no impact on the ability to control infection, but indeed may actually contribute to pathology (Dunay et al. Reference Dunay, Fuchs and Sibley2010).

As with many parasites studies, knowledge has been gained through the use of animal models, but this always leaves the question as to relevance for human infection. While studies using human cells are limited, it has been found that infection of human epithelial and fibroblast with the highly virulent RH strain of T. gondii results in production of the monocyte and neutrophil chemoattractants CCL2, CXCL1 and CXCL8 (Denney et al. Reference Denney, Eckmann and Reed1999). Importantly, host cell invasion and lysis was necessary for this response, with stimulation with T. gondii lysates not sufficient to induce the response (Denney et al. Reference Denney, Eckmann and Reed1999). More recently, studies examining the impact of neuronal T. gondii infection showed similar results, with human bone marrow endothelial cells and microglial cells showed significant expression of CCL2 and CXCL1 after 8 h of infection with either the RH or PRU strains, whereas infection of a neuroblastoma cell line only stimulated production of CXCL1 after 24 h of infection (Mammari et al. Reference Mammari, Vignoles, Halabi, Darde and Courtioux2014). CXCL8 was produced by all cell types at much earlier time-points post-infection, indicating a key role in initiating immune responses (Mammari et al. Reference Mammari, Vignoles, Halabi, Darde and Courtioux2014).

Cryptosporidiosis

The causative agents of cryptosporidiosis, Cryptosporidium, such as Plasmodium and T. gondii are Apicomplexan protists. The main species of Cryptosporidium, which causes gastroenteritis in humans are Cryptosporidium parvum and Cryptosporidium hominus and are mainly transmitted via the oral–fecal route (Tzipori and Ward, Reference Tzipori and Ward2002). Cryptosporidiosis is usually a short-term infection, but it can cause severe disease in those who are immunocompromised and in the young, and it can persist in the lower gastrointestinal tract for up to 5 weeks. Cryptosporidiosis is one of the leading causes of diarrhoeal disease in developing countries. This parasite is highly resistant to chlorine (Korich et al. Reference Korich, Mead, Madore, Sinclair and Sterling1990), therefore meaning it presents a particular challenge to remove it from water systems, which is the main route of transmission.

Unlike Plasmodium and Leishmania, Cryptosporidium does not require a vector, and unlike T. gondii, it is minimally invasive for humans. Controlling Cryptosporidium infection is highly dependent on immune cell recruitment. Indeed, parasite infection is restricted to the intestinal epithelia and in addition, in neonates (Auray et al. Reference Auray, Lacroix-Lamandé, Mancassola, Dimier-Poisson and Laurent2007; Lantier et al. Reference Lantier, Lacroix-Lamandé, Potiron, Metton, Drouet, Guesdon, Gnahoui-David, Le Vern, Deriaud, Fenis, Rabot, Descamps, Werts and Laurent2013) and in the immunodeficient host, there is a low representation of immune cells in the intestinal mucosa (Steege et al., Reference Steege, Buurman and Forget1997) as well as chemokines (Lantier et al. Reference Lantier, Lacroix-Lamandé, Potiron, Metton, Drouet, Guesdon, Gnahoui-David, Le Vern, Deriaud, Fenis, Rabot, Descamps, Werts and Laurent2013). Several papers have reviewed the immune response to this parasite and like many of the other parasites discussed, IFN-γ, IL-12 and the induction of the Th1-type response is key to immune control of parasite (Borad and Ward, Reference Borad and Ward2010; Petry et al. Reference Petry, Jakobi and Tessema2010; McDonald et al. Reference McDonald, Korbel, Barakat, Choudhry and Petry2013).

Of the CC chemokines, both CCL5 and CCL20 have been shown to play crucial roles in mediating immune responses against the parasite in models of both human and mouse infection, respectively. CCL5 is chemotactic for Th1T cells (Kawai et al. Reference Kawai, Seki, Hiromatsu, Eastcott, Watts, Sugai, Smith, Porcelli and Taubman1999) and monocytes (Schall et al. Reference Schall, Bacon, Toy and Goeddel1990), and has been shown in a human intestinal cell line model to be produced, along with CXCL8 and TGF-β, in response to C. parvum infection (Laurent et al. Reference Laurent, Eckmann, Savidge, Morgan, Theodos, Naciri and Kagnoff1997; Maillot et al. Reference Maillot, Gargala, Delaunay, Ducrotte, Brasseur, Ballet and Favennec2000) to draw in cells associated with aiding recovery. The mucosal-tissue associated chemokine, CCL20, which is known to exhibit antimicrobial activity (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Chen, Hoover, Staley, Tucker, Lubkowski and Oppenheim2003) is downregulated in a neonatal mouse model of C. parvum infection, resulting in increased parasite burden (Guesdon et al. Reference Guesdon, Auray, Pezier, Bussiere, Drouet, Le Vern, Marquis, Potiron, Rabot, Bruneau, Werts, Laurent and Lacroix-Lamande2015).

Due to immunocompetent adults being fairly resistant to infection, little work has been done utilizing chemokine receptor knockout mice; indeed, in a study using adult CCR5-/- mice, attempts to establish the infection were not successful (Campbell et al. Reference Campbell, Stewart and Mead2002). Despite this, the role of CCR5 in neonatal infection has been explored. Expression of mRNA for CCR5 and its ligands (CCL3, 4, 5) increases in the intestine of neonates from 4 to 6 days post-infection (Lacroix-Lamandé et al. Reference Lacroix-Lamandé, Mancassola, Auray, Bernardet and Laurent2008; Lantier et al. Reference Lantier, Lacroix-Lamandé, Potiron, Metton, Drouet, Guesdon, Gnahoui-David, Le Vern, Deriaud, Fenis, Rabot, Descamps, Werts and Laurent2013), suggesting a key role for CCR5 in the control of neonatal infection; however, CCR5-/- neonates showed a higher parasite burden only at the initial stages of infection, and recovered as well as the wild-type controls (Lacroix-Lamandé et al. Reference Lacroix-Lamandé, Mancassola, Auray, Bernardet and Laurent2008). The authors hypothesized that the redundancy in the chemokine system prevented the absence of CCR5 from inhibiting cell recruitment. Indeed, the authors noted that CCR5-/- mice has double the amount of CCR2 mRNA (Lacroix-Lamandé et al. Reference Lacroix-Lamandé, Mancassola, Auray, Bernardet and Laurent2008). CCR5 is an important chemokine receptor involved in monocyte trafficking, as is CCR2. Almost no inflammatory monocytes are found in the intestine of neonatal mice; however a recent study by (de Sablet et al. Reference de Sablet, Potiron, Marquis, Bussière, Lacroix-Lamandé and Laurent2016) has shown that upon infection with C. parvum this increases significantly. Infected neonatal CCR2-/- mice have, as expected, very few inflammatory monocytes in their intestine; however it has also been found that these mice differ from their wild-type counterparts in the permeability of the intestinal wall (de Sablet et al. Reference de Sablet, Potiron, Marquis, Bussière, Lacroix-Lamandé and Laurent2016). CCR2-/- mice did not lose epithelial barrier function to the same extent as wild-type mice, indicating that monocytes may contribute to this during C. parvum infection in neonates (de Sablet et al. Reference de Sablet, Potiron, Marquis, Bussière, Lacroix-Lamandé and Laurent2016).

Development and initiation of a successful immune response is highly dependent on the recruitment and functioning of professional antigen presenting cells such as DCs. As with the monocytic populations, neonatal intestines have few DCs, but upon infection with C. parvum, this number increases (Lantier et al. Reference Lantier, Lacroix-Lamandé, Potiron, Metton, Drouet, Guesdon, Gnahoui-David, Le Vern, Deriaud, Fenis, Rabot, Descamps, Werts and Laurent2013). CXCL10 is a ligand for CXCR3 (Loetscher et al. Reference Loetscher, Gerber, Loetscher, Jones, Piali, Clark-Lewis, Baggiolini and Moser1996), and attracts T cells, B cells, NK cells, DCs and macrophages (Sallusto et al. Reference Sallusto, Lenig, Mackay and Lanzavecchia1998; Liu et al. Reference Liu, Guo, Hibbert, Jain, Singh, Wilson and Stiles2011). To analyse the role of CXCL10 and its receptor CXCR3 in neonatal infection, CXCR3-/- neonates were infected and it was found that DCs were not recruited to the intestine and that these mice did not control infection as well as their wild-type counterparts (Lantier et al. Reference Lantier, Lacroix-Lamandé, Potiron, Metton, Drouet, Guesdon, Gnahoui-David, Le Vern, Deriaud, Fenis, Rabot, Descamps, Werts and Laurent2013).

As previously mentioned, cryptosporidiosis is also a severe and life-threatening disease for the immunocompromised, for example AIDS patients. The severity of disease in these individuals highlights the necessity for a functional CD4+ T cell response to the parasite. CXCL10 has also been studied in the context of C. parvum infection as a complication of AIDS. In jejunal biopsies from AIDS patients with, and without C. parvum infection, CXCL10 was found in high levels in those patients with the dual infection, and this correlated with parasite burden (Wang et al. Reference Wang, Dann, Okhuysen, Lewis, Chappell, Adler and White2007). CXCL10 was localized to epithelial cells, and has been hypothesized to play a key role in the resolution of C. parvum infection in AIDS patients (Wang et al. Reference Wang, Dann, Okhuysen, Lewis, Chappell, Adler and White2007).

Leishmaniasis

Leishmania species are protists, which are members of the Sarcomastigophora phylum. Leishmania species exist in two forms; the intracellular amastigote form, and the promastigote form. The life cycle of the parasite involves amastigote and promastigote morphologies (Wheeler et al. Reference Wheeler, Gluenz and Gull2011), with extracellular promastigotes colonizing the sandfly midgut, while the intracellular amastigotes are associated with the mammalian host (Bates, Reference Bates2007). On initial infection of the host, promastigotes are engulfed by phagocytes and reside within the phagolysosome, where the parasite has the ability to inhibit phagolysosome biogenesis though its surface glycolipid lipophosphoglycan (Moradin and Descoteaux, Reference Moradin and Descoteaux2012). The parasite then differentiates into amastigotes within macrophages, replicating within the phagolysosome, before being released to infect cells in various tissues around the body (Moradin and Descoteaux, Reference Moradin and Descoteaux2012). The host can then transmit the parasite to uninfected sandflies, where it is believed that the sandfly ingests amastigote-infected macrophages during feeding (Dostálová and Volf, Reference Dostálová and Volf2012).

Leishmaniasises can be described as visceral, cutaneous or mucocutaneous, causing 20 000–30 000 deaths annually (World Health Organization figures, 2016). Visceral leishmaniasis is the most severe form of the disease, causing enlargement of the spleen and liver, most commonly caused by the Leishmania chagasi and Leishmania donovani strains. Cutaneous leishmaniasis is disfiguring to those infected, and is caused by the Leishmania amazonensis, Leishmania major and Leishmania mexicana strains, whereas mucocutaneous leishmaniasis is mostly associated with the Leishmania brasiliensis strain. A common feature of these infections is the extensive inflammatory reaction (Nylen and Gautam, Reference Nylen and Gautam2010; Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Ribeiro, Schrieffer, Machado, Carvalho and Bacellar2014; Melo et al. Reference Melo, Silva, Grano, Souza and Machado2015; Rodrigues et al. Reference Rodrigues, Mazotto, Cardoso, Alves, Amaral, Silva, Pinheiro and Vermelho2015).

The immune response elicited against Leishmania spp. is complex, particularly as the parasite preferentially infects phagocytic cells, including DCs, macrophages and neutrophils. While the importance of granulocytes for the control of Leishmania infections is clear, studies have shown this parasite can actually evade the killing mechanisms of phagocytes, and use these cells to hide and spread infection (Laskay et al. Reference Laskay, van Zandbergen and Solbach2003; van Zandbergen et al. Reference van Zandbergen, Klinger, Mueller, Dannenberg, Gebert, Solbach and Laskay2004; Shapira and Zinoviev, Reference Shapira and Zinoviev2011). Resistance to leishmaniasis requires induction of a Th1-type response, with both IFN-γ and IL-12 crucial for this response (Kemp et al. Reference Kemp, Hey, Kurtzhals, Christensen, Gaafar, Mustafa, Kordofani, Ismail, Kharazmi and Theander1994; Kurtzhals et al. Reference Kurtzhals, Hey, Jardim, Kemp, Schaefer, Odera, Christensen, Githure, Olafson and Theander1994; Ghalib et al. Reference Ghalib, Whittle, Kubin, Hashim, el-Hassan, Grabstein, Trinchieri and Reed1995; Alexander et al. Reference Alexander, Satoskar and Russell1999). A number of studies and reviews have examined the expression of chemokines, and their role in mediating immunity against Leishmania spp. (Teixeira et al. Reference Teixeira, Teixeira, Andrade, Barral-Netto and Barral2006; Oghumu et al. Reference Oghumu, Lezama-Davila, Isaac-Marquez and Satoskar2010). Again, with examples for L. donovani and L. major included in Table 2, chemokine receptor knockout mice have been instrumental in dissecting the pathways of inflammation involved in developing immunity to infection, along with development of tissue pathology.

In a murine model of visceral leishmaniasis, utilizing L. donovani, CCL2, CCL3 and CXCL10 were found to be produced in the first week of infection by the liver, at a point when inflammation is being initiated (Cotterell et al. Reference Cotterell, Engwerda and Kaye1999). By comparing wild-type BALB/c mice with SCID mice, the authors found that early T-cell-independent chemokine expression does not mediate the inflammation associated with development of the characteristic granulomas found in the livers of infected mice (Cotterell et al. Reference Cotterell, Engwerda and Kaye1999). Leishmania donovani-infected CCL3−/- mice have shown that this chemokine is not essential for control of the parasite; however, spleen cells from mice infected for 8 weeks produce significantly higher levels of IFN-γ than the wild-type controls, with CD4+ T cells the main source of this cytokine within the spleen cell mixture (Sato et al. Reference Sato, Kuziel, Melby, Reddick, Kostecki, Zhao, Maeda, Ahuja and Ahuja1999).

The role of CCL3 has also been examined in a murine model of cutaneous leishmaniasis, using L. major as the infective parasite (Steigerwald and Moll, Reference Steigerwald and Moll2005). DCs exposed to L. major were found to reduce expression of the receptors CCR2 and CCR5, as well as their ability to respond to CCL2 and CCL3; however, these cells upregulated expression of the receptor CCR7, and were therefore more responsive to its ligand CCL21 (Steigerwald and Moll, Reference Steigerwald and Moll2005). The authors of this particular study postulate that in response to the parasite, the immune system modulates the recruitment of DCs to the secondary lymphoid organs for antigen presentation. Indeed, a more recent study has shown that the lymph node hypertrophy that occurs during in vivo murine L. major infection, is due to bystander DCs expressing elevated levels of CCR7 in a TLR-9-dependent manner, leading to enhanced immune cell recruitment during the first weeks post-infection (Carvalho et al. Reference Carvalho, Petritus, Trochtenberg, Zaph, Hill, Artis and Scott2012). Additionally, studies looking at the hours immediately after exposure to L. major promastigotes demonstrated immediate and transient upregulation of CCL2 and CXCL1 production by murine macrophages (Racoosin and Beverley, Reference Racoosin and Beverley1997).

These studies, amongst many others, demonstrate that chemokines are induced at early and late stages of infection. However, these are in murine models of infection. What is known about chemokines in human leishmaniasis? Lesions from humans suffering from different degrees of cutaneous leishmaniasis (localized, intermediate and diffuse) showed elevated CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CCL8 and CXCL10 in localized lesions and CCL3 in diffuse lesions (Ritter et al. Reference Ritter, Moll, Laskay, Brocker, Velazco, Becker and Gillitzer1996; Díaz et al. Reference Díaz, Zerpa and Tapia2013). Indeed, incubation of human blood mononuclear cells with L. major results in production of CCL2 and CXCL8 (Badolato et al. Reference Badolato, Sacks, Savoia and Musso1996).

Concluding remarks

The chemokine, and chemokine receptor system is complex, with slight variations between humans and mice, for example, human CCL13 has no mouse equivalent, and while mouse CCL8 binds CCR8, human CCL8 does not, suggesting that human and mouse CCL8 are not equivalent chemokines (Zlotnik and Yoshie, Reference Zlotnik and Yoshie2012). This highlights the need for careful translation of research findings from animal model to human disease. This review has focused on four protists, responsible for a significant amount of disease burden globally, and not only highlights the complexity of the chemokine system, but clearly demonstrates gaps in our understanding of the immune response to these organisms. The interesting paradox with chemokines is that these proteins draw in the cells that can facilitate resistance, but in some cases, may actually facilitate infection spread through providing more cells for the parasite to infect, allowing the parasites to adopt a ‘Trojan-horse’ style of deception from the host immune system. Therefore, there is a necessity for controlled balance between immunity for host protection, and immunity contributing to disease pathology.

The parasites discussed within this article are all members of the Protista kingdom; however, the diseases they cause in humans are quite different, mainly due to the specificities of each life cycle. Common to all is the importance of a Th1-type immune response for control of parasite replication, and with that, the inflammation-induced pathologies driven by excessive inflammation. Studies utilizing chemokine and chemokine-receptor knockout mice have been crucial in elucidating the immune pathways driven by these infections. For example, as highlighted previously, studies have been conducted with all of the protists discussed using CCR5-/- mice (Table 2), giving insight into the role of CCR5 expressing cells (monocytes, activated T cells, DCs, NK cells) in protective immune responses and development of pathology.

In recent times, the development and investigation of the use of chemokine receptor agonists, and antagonists for disease therapy (Castellani et al. Reference Castellani, Bhattacharya, Tagen, Kempuraj, Perrella, De Lutiis, Boucher, Conti, Theoharides, Cerulli, Salini and Neri2007; Mohit and Rafati, Reference Mohit and Rafati2012) has been an area of investigation in the field of chemokine biology; however much of this work focuses on the use these new therapies as cancer treatments (Ruffini et al. Reference Ruffini, Morandi, Cabioglu, Altundag and Cristofanilli2007; Wu et al. Reference Wu, Lee, Chevalier and Hwang2009) and could be extended to infectious disease. This, along with the recognition that chemokines may also prove useful as potential biomarkers for infectious diseases, for example, as that described for CXCL10 in CM, highlights the need for research focus in this area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for their constructive comments.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Supported by the Institute for Biomedical and Environmental Health Research (UWS) Academic Development Fund and the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland (both to F. M. M.).

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, J., Satoskar, A. R. and Russell, D. G. (1999). Leishmania species: models of intracellular parasitism. Journal of Cell Science 112, 29933002.Google Scholar
Aliberti, J., Valenzuela, J. G., Carruthers, V. B., Hieny, S., Andersen, J., Charest, H., Reis e Sousa, C., Fairlamb, A., Ribeiro, J. M. and Sher, A. (2003). Molecular mimicry of a CCR5 binding-domain in the microbial activation of dendritic cells. Nature Immunology 4, 485490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armah, H. B., Wilson, N. O., Sarfo, B. Y., Powell, M. D., Bond, V. C., Anderson, W., Adjei, A. A., Gyasi, R. K., Tettey, Y., Wiredu, E. K., Tongren, J. E., Udhayakumar, V. and Stiles, J. K. (2007). Cerebrospinal fluid and serum biomarkers of cerebral malaria mortality in Ghanaian children. Malaria Journal 6, 147.Google Scholar
Artavanis-Tsakonas, K. and Riley, E. M. (2002). Innate immune response to malaria: rapid induction of IFN-gamma from human NK cells by live Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocytes. Journal of Immunology 169, 29562963.Google Scholar
Auray, G., Lacroix-Lamandé, S., Mancassola, R., Dimier-Poisson, I. and Laurent, F. (2007). Involvement of intestinal epithelial cells in dendritic cell recruitment during C. parvum infection. Microbes Infect 9, 574582.Google Scholar
Bachelerie, F., Ben-Baruch, A., Burkhardt, A. M., Combadiere, C., Farber, J. M., Graham, G. J., Horuk, R., Sparre-Ulrich, A. H., Locati, M., Luster, A. D., Mantovani, A., Matsushima, K., Murphy, P. M., Nibbs, R., Nomiyama, H., Power, C. A., Proudfoot, A. E., Rosenkilde, M. M., Rot, A., Sozzani, S., Thelen, M., Yoshie, O. and Zlotnik, A. (2014). International Union of Pharmacology. LXXXIX. Update on the extended family of chemokine receptors and introducing a new nomenclature for atypical chemokine receptors. Pharmacological Reviews 66, 179.Google Scholar
Badolato, R., Sacks, D. L., Savoia, D. and Musso, T. (1996). Leishmania major: infection of human monocytes induces expression of IL-8 and MCAF. Experimental Parasitology 82, 2126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barragan, A. and Sibley, L. D. (2002). Transepithelial migration of Toxoplasma gondii is linked to parasite motility and virulence. Journal of Experimental Medicine 195, 16251633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, P. A. (2007). Transmission of Leishmania metacyclic promastigotes by phlebotomine sand flies. International Journal for Parasitology 37, 10971106.Google Scholar
Belnoue, E., Costa, F. T., Vigario, A. M., Voza, T., Gonnet, F., Landau, I., Van Rooijen, N., Mack, M., Kuziel, W. A. and Renia, L. (2003 a). Chemokine receptor CCR2 is not essential for the development of experimental cerebral malaria. Infection and Immunity 71, 36483651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belnoue, E., Kayibanda, M., Deschemin, J. C., Viguier, M., Mack, M., Kuziel, W. A. and Renia, L. (2003 b). CCR5 deficiency decreases susceptibility to experimental cerebral malaria. Blood 101, 42534259.Google Scholar
Benevides, L., Milanezi, C. M., Yamauchi, L. M., Benjamim, C. F., Silva, J. S. and Silva, N. M. (2008). CCR2 receptor is essential to activate microbicidal mechanisms to control Toxoplasma gondii infection in the central nervous system. American Journal of Pathology 173, 741751.Google Scholar
Bliss, S. K., Marshall, A. J., Zhang, Y. and Denkers, E. Y. (1999). Human polymorphonuclear leukocytes produce IL-12, TNF-alpha, and the chemokines macrophage-inflammatory protein-1 alpha and -1 beta in response to Toxoplasma gondii antigens. Journal of Immunology 162, 73697375.Google Scholar
Borad, A. and Ward, H. (2010). Human immune responses in cryptosporidiosis. Future Microbiology 5, 507519.Google Scholar
Braun, L., Brenier-Pinchart, M.-P., Yogavel, M., Curt-Varesano, A., Curt-Bertini, R.-L., Hussain, T., Kieffer-Jaquinod, S., Coute, Y., Pelloux, H., Tardieux, I., Sharma, A., Belrhali, H., Bougdour, A. and Hakimi, M.-A. (2013). A Toxoplasma dense granule protein, GRA24, modulates the early immune response to infection by promoting a direct and sustained host p38 MAPK activation. Journal of Experimental Medicine 210, 20712086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brenier-Pinchart, M.-P., Villena, I., Mercier, C., Durand, F., Simon, J., Cesbron-Delauw, M.-F. and Pelloux, H. (2006). The Toxoplasma surface protein SAG1 triggers efficient in vitro secretion of chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2) from human fibroblasts. Microbes and Infection 8, 254261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campanella, G. S., Tager, A. M., El Khoury, J. K., Thomas, S. Y., Abrazinski, T. A., Manice, L. A., Colvin, R. A. and Luster, A. D. (2008). Chemokine receptor CXCR3 and its ligands CXCL9 and CXCL10 are required for the development of murine cerebral malaria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 48144819.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. D., Stewart, J. N. and Mead, J. R. (2002). Susceptibility to Cryptosporidium parvum infections in cytokine- and chemokine-receptor knockout mice. Journal of Parasitology 88, 10141016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, L. P., Petritus, P. M., Trochtenberg, A. L., Zaph, C., Hill, D. A., Artis, D. and Scott, P. (2012). Lymph node hypertrophy following Leishmania major infection is dependent on TLR9. Journal of Immunology 188, 13941401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castellani, M. L., Bhattacharya, K., Tagen, M., Kempuraj, D., Perrella, A., De Lutiis, M., Boucher, W., Conti, P., Theoharides, T. C., Cerulli, G., Salini, V. and Neri, G. (2007). Anti-chemokine therapy for inflammatory diseases. International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology 20, 447453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S. B., Maurer, K. J., Egan, C. E., Oghumu, S., Satoskar, A. R. and Denkers, E. Y. (2013). CXCR3-dependent CD4(+) T cells are required to activate inflammatory monocytes for defense against intestinal infection. PLoS Pathogens 9, e1003706.Google Scholar
Combadiere, C., Ahuja, S. K., Tiffany, H. L. and Murphy, P. M. (1996). Cloning and functional expression of CC CKR5, a human monocyte CC chemokine receptor selective for MIP-1(alpha), MIP-1(beta), and RANTES. Journal of Leukocyte Biology 60, 147152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comerford, I. and McColl, S. R. (2011). Mini-review series: focus on chemokines. Immunology and Cell Biology 89, 183184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombes, J. L. and Hunter, C. A. (2015). Immunity to Toxoplasma gondii–into the 21st century. Parasite Immunology 37, 105107.Google Scholar
Coombes, J. L., Charsar, B. A., Han, S. J., Halkias, J., Chan, S. W., Koshy, A. A., Striepen, B., and Robey, E. A. (2013). Motile invaded neutrophils in the small intestine of Toxoplasma gondii-infected mice reveal a potential mechanism for parasite spread. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, E1913E1922.Google ScholarPubMed
Cotterell, S. E., Engwerda, C. R. and Kaye, P. M. (1999). Leishmania donovani infection initiates T cell-independent chemokine responses, which are subsequently amplified in a T cell-dependent manner. European Journal of Immunology 29, 203214.Google Scholar
Da Gama, L. M., Ribeiro-Gomes, F. L., Guimaraes, U. Jr. and Arnholdt, A. C. (2004). Reduction in adhesiveness to extracellular matrix components, modulation of adhesion molecules and in vivo migration of murine macrophages infected with Toxoplasma gondii . Microbes and Infection 6, 12871296.Google Scholar
Del Rio, L., Bennouna, S., Salinas, J. and Denkers, E. Y. (2001). CXCR2 deficiency confers impaired neutrophil recruitment and increased susceptibility during Toxoplasma gondii infection. Journal of Immunology 167, 65036509.Google Scholar
Denney, C. F., Eckmann, L. and Reed, S. L. (1999). Chemokine secretion of human cells in response to Toxoplasma gondii infection. Infection and Immunity 67, 15471552.Google Scholar
de Sablet, T., Potiron, L., Marquis, M., Bussière, F. I., Lacroix-Lamandé, S. and Laurent, F. (2016). Cryptosporidium parvum increases intestinal permeability through interaction with epithelial cells and IL-1β and TNFα released by inflammatory monocytes. Cellular Microbiology. doi:10.1111/cmi.12632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Díaz, N. L., Zerpa, O. and Tapia, F. J. (2013). Chemokines and chemokine receptors expression in the lesions of patients with American cutaneous leishmaniasis. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 108, 446452.Google Scholar
Dostálová, A. and Volf, P. (2012). Leishmania development in sand flies: parasite–vector interactions overview. Parasites and Vectors 5, 112.Google Scholar
Dragic, T., Litwin, V., Allaway, G. P., Martin, S. R., Huang, Y., Nagashima, K. A., Cayanan, C., Maddon, P. J., Koup, R. A., Moore, J. P. and Paxton, W. A. (1996). HIV-1 entry into CD4+ cells is mediated by the chemokine receptor CC-CKR-5. Nature 381, 667673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubey, J. P. (1996). Toxoplasma Gondii . In Medical Microbiology, 4th Edn (ed. S., Baron), University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. Chapter 84. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7752/.Google Scholar
Dubey, J. P. (2009). History of the discovery of the life cycle of Toxoplasma gondii . International Journal for Parasitology 39, 877882.Google Scholar
Dubey, J. P., Lindsay, D. S. and Speer, C. A. (1998). Structures of Toxoplasma gondii tachyzoites, bradyzoites, and sporozoites and biology and development of tissue cysts. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 11, 267299.Google Scholar
Dunay, I. R., Damatta, R. A., Fux, B., Presti, R., Greco, S., Colonna, M. and Sibley, L. D. (2008). Gr1(+) inflammatory monocytes are required for mucosal resistance to the pathogen Toxoplasma gondii . Immunity 29, 306317.Google Scholar
Dunay, I. R., Fuchs, A. and Sibley, L. D. (2010). Inflammatory monocytes but not neutrophils are necessary to control infection with Toxoplasma gondii in Mice. Infection and Immunity 78, 15641570.Google Scholar
Egan, C. E., Craven, M. D., Leng, J., Mack, M., Simpson, K. W. and Denkers, E. Y. (2009). CCR2-dependent intraepithelial lymphocytes mediate inflammatory gut pathology during Toxoplasma gondii infection. Mucosal Immunology 2, 527535.Google Scholar
Elsheikha, H. M. and Khan, N. A. (2010). Protozoa traversal of the blood–brain barrier to invade the central nervous system. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 34, 532553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esche, C., Stellato, C. and Beck, L. A. (2005). Chemokines: key players in innate and adaptive immunity. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology 125, 615628.Google Scholar
Franklin, B. S., Parroche, P., Ataide, M. A., Lauw, F., Ropert, C., de Oliveira, R. B., Pereira, D., Tada, M. S., Nogueira, P., da Silva, L. H., Bjorkbacka, H., Golenbock, D. T. and Gazzinelli, R. T. (2009). Malaria primes the innate immune response due to interferon-gamma induced enhancement of toll-like receptor expression and function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 57895794.Google Scholar
Ghalib, H. W., Whittle, J. A., Kubin, M., Hashim, F. A., el-Hassan, A. M., Grabstein, K. H., Trinchieri, G. and Reed, S. G. (1995). IL-12 enhances Th1-type responses in human Leishmania donovani infections. Journal of Immunology 154, 46234629.Google Scholar
Gilbert, R., Tan, H. K., Cliffe, S., Guy, E. and Stanford, M. (2006). Symptomatic toxoplasma infection due to congenital and postnatally acquired infection. Archives of Disease in Childhood 91, 495498.Google Scholar
Gopal, R., Birdsell, D. and Monroy, F. P. (2011). Regulation of chemokine responses in intestinal epithelial cells by stress and Toxoplasma gondii infection. Parasite Immunology 33, 1224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graves, D. T. and Jiang, Y. (1995). Chemokines, a family of chemotactic cytokines. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine 6, 109118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guesdon, W., Auray, G., Pezier, T., Bussiere, F. I., Drouet, F., Le Vern, Y., Marquis, M., Potiron, L., Rabot, S., Bruneau, A., Werts, C., Laurent, F. and Lacroix-Lamande, S. (2015). CCL20 displays antimicrobial activity against Cryptosporidium parvum, but its expression is reduced during infection in the intestine of neonatal mice. Journal of Infectious Diseases 212, 13321340.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, F., Muller, W., Schutz, D., Penfold, M. E., Wong, Y. H., Schulz, S. and Stumm, R. (2012). Rapid uptake and degradation of CXCL12 depend on CXCR7 carboxyl-terminal serine/threonine residues. Journal of Biological Chemistry 287, 2836228377.Google Scholar
Hora, R., Kapoor, P., Thind, K. K. and Mishra, P. C. (2016). Cerebral malaria–clinical manifestations and pathogenesis. Metabolic Brain Disease 31, 225237.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, H. M., Bannai, H., Xuan, X. and Nishikawa, Y. (2009). Toxoplasma gondii cyclophilin 18-mediated production of nitric oxide induces Bradyzoite conversion in a CCR5-dependent manner. Infection and Immunity 77, 36863695.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, H. M., Xuan, X. and Nishikawa, Y. (2010). Toxoplasma gondii cyclophilin 18 regulates the proliferation and migration of murine macrophages and spleen cells. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 17, 13221329.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, H. M., Nishimura, M., Tanaka, S., Awadin, W., Furuoka, H., Xuan, X. and Nishikawa, Y. (2014). Overproduction of Toxoplasma gondii cyclophilin-18 regulates host cell migration and enhances parasite dissemination in a CCR5-independent manner. BMC Microbiology 14, 76.Google Scholar
Jain, V., Armah, H. B., Tongren, J. E., Ned, R. M., Wilson, N. O., Crawford, S., Joel, P. K., Singh, M. P., Nagpal, A. C., Dash, A. P., Udhayakumar, V., Singh, N. and Stiles, J. K. (2008). Plasma IP-10, apoptotic and angiogenic factors associated with fatal cerebral malaria in India. Malaria Journal 7, 83.Google Scholar
Jia, T., Serbina, N. V., Brandl, K., Zhong, M. X., Leiner, I. M., Charo, I. F. and Pamer, E. G. (2008). Additive roles for MCP-1 and MCP-3 in CCR2-mediated recruitment of inflammatory monocytes during Listeria monocytogenes infection. Journal of Immunology 180, 68466853.Google Scholar
Jiang, P. J., Zhao, A. M., Bao, S. M., Xiao, S. J. and Xiong, M. (2009). Expression of chemokine receptors CCR3, CCR5 and CXCR3 on CD4(+) T cells in CBA/JxDBA/2 mouse model, selectively induced by IL-4 and IL-10, regulates the embryo resorption rate. Chinese Medical Journal (Engl) 122, 19171921.Google Scholar
Jones, J. L. and Dubey, J. P. (2010). Waterborne toxoplasmosis–recent developments. Experimental Parasitology 124, 1025.Google Scholar
Jones, J. L., Kruszon-Moran, D., Wilson, M., McQuillan, G., Navin, T. and McAuley, J. B. (2001). Toxoplasma gondii infection in the United States: seroprevalence and risk factors. American Journal of Epidemiology 154, 357365.Google Scholar
Kantele, A. and Jokiranta, T. S. (2011). Review of cases with the emerging fifth human malaria parasite, Plasmodium knowlesi . Clinical Infectious Diseases 52, 13561362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaushansky, A. and Kappe, S. H. (2015). Selection and refinement: the malaria parasite's infection and exploitation of host hepatocytes. Current Opinion in Microbiology 26, 7178.Google Scholar
Kawai, T., Seki, M., Hiromatsu, K., Eastcott, J. W., Watts, G. F., Sugai, M., Smith, D. J., Porcelli, S. A. and Taubman, M. A. (1999). Selective diapedesis of Th1 cells induced by endothelial cell RANTES. Journal of Immunology 163, 32693278.Google Scholar
Kemp, M., Hey, A. S., Kurtzhals, J. A., Christensen, C. B., Gaafar, A., Mustafa, M. D., Kordofani, A. A., Ismail, A., Kharazmi, A. and Theander, T. G. (1994). Dichotomy of the human T cell response to Leishmania antigens. I. Th1-like response to Leishmania major promastigote antigens in individuals recovered from cutaneous leishmaniasis. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 96, 410415.Google Scholar
Khan, I. A., Murphy, P. M., Casciotti, L., Schwartzman, J. D., Collins, J., Gao, J. L. and Yeaman, G. R. (2001). Mice lacking the chemokine receptor CCR1 show increased susceptibility to Toxoplasma gondii infection. Journal of Immunology 166, 19301937.Google Scholar
Khan, I. A., Thomas, S. Y., Moretto, M. M., Lee, F. S., Islam, S. A., Combe, C., Schwartzman, J. D. and Luster, A. D. (2006). CCR5 is essential for NK cell trafficking and host survival following Toxoplasma gondii infection. PLoS Pathogens 2, e49.Google Scholar
Korich, D. G., Mead, J. R., Madore, M. S., Sinclair, N. A. and Sterling, C. R. (1990). Effects of ozone, chlorine dioxide, chlorine, and monochloramine on Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst viability. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56, 14231428.Google Scholar
Kurtzhals, J. A., Hey, A. S., Jardim, A., Kemp, M., Schaefer, K. U., Odera, E. O., Christensen, C. B., Githure, J. I., Olafson, R. W., Theander, T. G. and et al. (1994). Dichotomy of the human T cell response to Leishmania antigens. II. Absent or Th2-like response to gp63 and Th1-like response to lipophosphoglycan-associated protein in cells from cured visceral leishmaniasis patients. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 96, 416421.Google Scholar
Lacroix-Lamandé, S., Mancassola, R., Auray, G., Bernardet, N. and Laurent, F. (2008). CCR5 is involved in controlling the early stage of Cryptosporidium parvum infection in neonates but is dispensable for parasite elimination. Microbes and Infection 10, 390395.Google Scholar
Lambert, H., Vutova, P. P., Adams, W. C., Lore, K. and Barragan, A. (2009). The Toxoplasma gondii-shuttling function of dendritic cells is linked to the parasite genotype. Infection and Immunity 77, 16791688.Google Scholar
Lantier, L., Lacroix-Lamandé, S., Potiron, L., Metton, C., Drouet, F., Guesdon, W., Gnahoui-David, A., Le Vern, Y., Deriaud, E., Fenis, A., Rabot, S., Descamps, A., Werts, C. and Laurent, F. (2013). Intestinal CD103+ dendritic cells are key players in the innate immune control of Cryptosporidium parvum infection in neonatal mice. PLoS Pathogens 9, e1003801.Google Scholar
Laskay, T., van Zandbergen, G. and Solbach, W. (2003). Neutrophil granulocytes–Trojan horses for Leishmania major and other intracellular microbes? Trends in Microbiology 11, 210214.Google Scholar
Laurent, F., Eckmann, L., Savidge, T. C., Morgan, G., Theodos, C., Naciri, M. and Kagnoff, M. F. (1997). Cryptosporidium parvum infection of human intestinal epithelial cells induces the polarized secretion of C-X-C chemokines. Infection and Immunity 65, 50675073.Google Scholar
Lee, B., Sharron, M., Montaner, L. J., Weissman, D. and Doms, R. W. (1999). Quantification of CD4, CCR5, and CXCR4 levels on lymphocyte subsets, dendritic cells, and differentially conditioned monocyte-derived macrophages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96, 52155220.Google Scholar
Liu, M., Guo, S., Hibbert, J. M., Jain, V., Singh, N., Wilson, N. O. and Stiles, J. K. (2011). CXCL10/IP-10 in infectious diseases pathogenesis and potential therapeutic implications. Cytokine and Growth Factor Reviews 22, 121130.Google ScholarPubMed
Loetscher, M., Gerber, B., Loetscher, P., Jones, S. A., Piali, L., Clark-Lewis, I., Baggiolini, M. and Moser, B. (1996). Chemokine receptor specific for IP10 and mig: structure, function, and expression in activated T-lymphocytes. Journal of Experimental Medicine 184, 963969.Google Scholar
Luangsay, S., Kasper, L. H., Rachinel, N., Minns, L. A., Mennechet, F. J., Vandewalle, A. and Buzoni-Gatel, D. (2003). CCR5 mediates specific migration of Toxoplasma gondii-primed CD8 lymphocytes to inflammatory intestinal epithelial cells. Gastroenterology 125, 491500.Google Scholar
Lucchi, N. W., Jain, V., Wilson, N. O., Singh, N., Udhayakumar, V. and Stiles, J. K. (2011). Potential serological biomarkers of cerebral malaria. Disease Markers 31, 327335.Google Scholar
Luker, K. E., Steele, J. M., Mihalko, L. A., Ray, P. and Luker, G. D. (2010). Constitutive and chemokine-dependent internalization and recycling of CXCR7 in breast cancer cells to degrade chemokine ligands. Oncogene 29, 45994610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maillot, C., Gargala, G., Delaunay, A., Ducrotte, P., Brasseur, P., Ballet, J. J. and Favennec, L. (2000). Cryptosporidium parvum infection stimulates the secretion of TGF-beta, IL-8 and RANTES by Caco-2 cell line. Parasitology Research 86, 947949.Google Scholar
Mammari, N., Vignoles, P., Halabi, M. A., Darde, M. L. and Courtioux, B. (2014). In vitro infection of human nervous cells by two strains of Toxoplasma gondii: a kinetic analysis of immune mediators and parasite multiplication. PLoS ONE 9, e98491.Google Scholar
McCall, M. B. and Sauerwein, R. W. (2010). Interferon-gamma–central mediator of protective immune responses against the pre-erythrocytic and blood stage of malaria. Journal of Leukocyte Biology 88, 11311143.Google Scholar
McColl, S. R. (2002). Chemokines and dendritic cells: a crucial alliance. Immunology and Cell Biology 80, 489496.Google Scholar
McDonald, V., Korbel, D. S., Barakat, F. M., Choudhry, N. and Petry, F. (2013). Innate immune responses against Cryptosporidium parvum infection. Parasite Immunology 35, 5564.Google Scholar
McGovern, K. E. and Wilson, E. H. (2013). Role of chemokines and trafficking of immune cells in parasitic infections. Current Immunology Reviews 9, 157168.Google Scholar
Melo, G. D., Silva, J. E., Grano, F. G., Souza, M. S. and Machado, G. F. (2015). Leishmania infection and neuroinflammation: specific chemokine profile and absence of parasites in the brain of naturally-infected dogs. Journal of Neuroimmunology 289, 2129.Google Scholar
Miller, C. M., Boulter, N. R., Ikin, R. J. and Smith, N. C. (2009). The immunobiology of the innate response to Toxoplasma gondii . International Journal for Parasitology 39, 2339.Google Scholar
Mohit, E. and Rafati, S. (2012). Chemokine-based immunotherapy: delivery systems and combination therapies. Immunotherapy 4, 807840.Google Scholar
Moradin, N. and Descoteaux, A. (2012). Leishmania promastigotes: building a safe niche within macrophages. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 2, 121.Google Scholar
Munoz, M., Liesenfeld, O. and Heimesaat, M. M. (2011). Immunology of Toxoplasma gondii . Immunological Reviews 240, 269285.Google Scholar
Newton, C. R., Hien, T. T. and White, N. (2000). Cerebral malaria. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 69, 433441.Google Scholar
Nibbs, R. J. and Graham, G. J. (2013). Immune regulation by atypical chemokine receptors. Nature Reviews. Immunology 13, 815829.Google Scholar
Nie, C. Q., Bernard, N. J., Norman, M. U., Amante, F. H., Lundie, R. J., Crabb, B. S., Heath, W. R., Engwerda, C. R., Hickey, M. J., Schofield, L. and Hansen, D. S. (2009). IP-10-mediated T cell homing promotes cerebral inflammation over splenic immunity to malaria infection. PLoS Pathogens 5, e1000369.Google Scholar
Nitcheu, J., Bonduelle, O., Combadiere, C., Tefit, M., Seilhean, D., Mazier, D. and Combadiere, B. (2003). Perforin-dependent brain-infiltrating cytotoxic CD8+ T lymphocytes mediate experimental cerebral malaria pathogenesis. Journal of Immunology 170, 22212228.Google Scholar
Niu, X., Wang, H. and Fu, Z. F. (2011). Role of chemokines in rabies pathogenesis and protection. Advances in Virus Research 79, 7389.Google Scholar
Noor, S., Habashy, A. S., Nance, J. P., Clark, R. T., Nemati, K., Carson, M. J. and Wilson, E. H. (2010). CCR7-dependent immunity during acute Toxoplasma gondii infection. Infection and Immunity 78, 22572263.Google Scholar
Nylen, S. and Gautam, S. (2010). Immunological perspectives of leishmaniasis. Journal of Global Infectious Diseases 2, 135146.Google Scholar
Oghumu, S., Lezama-Davila, C. M., Isaac-Marquez, A. P. and Satoskar, A. R. (2010). Role of chemokines in regulation of immunity against leishmaniasis. Experimental Parasitology 126, 389396.Google Scholar
Oliveira, W. N., Ribeiro, L. E., Schrieffer, A., Machado, P., Carvalho, E. M. and Bacellar, O. (2014). The role of inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines in the pathogenesis of human tegumentary leishmaniasis. Cytokine 66, 127132.Google Scholar
Paspalaki, P. K., Mihailidou, E. P., Bitsori, M., Tsagkaraki, D. and Mantzouranis, E. (2001). Polyomyositis and myocarditis associated with acquired toxoplasmosis in an immunocompetent girl. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2, 8.Google Scholar
Pattaradilokrat, S., Li, J., Wu, J., Qi, Y., Eastman, R. T., Zilversmit, M., Nair, S. C., Huaman, M. C., Quinones, M., Jiang, H., Li, N., Zhu, J., Zhao, K., Kaneko, O., Long, C. A. and Su, X.-Z. (2014). Plasmodium genetic loci linked to host cytokine and chemokine responses. Genes and Immunity 15, 145152.Google Scholar
Perez-Mazliah, D. and Langhorne, J. (2014). CD4T-cell subsets in malaria: TH1/TH2 revisited. Frontiers in Immunology 5, 671.Google Scholar
Petry, F., Jakobi, V. and Tessema, T. S. (2010). Host immune response to Cryptosporidium parvum infection. Experimental Parasitology 126, 304309.Google Scholar
Pinard, J. A., Leslie, N. S. and Irvine, P. J. (2003). Maternal serologic screening for toxoplasmosis. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 48, 308316; quiz 386.Google Scholar
Rachinel, N., Buzoni-Gatel, D., Dutta, C., Mennechet, F. J., Luangsay, S., Minns, L. A., Grigg, M. E., Tomavo, S., Boothroyd, J. C. and Kasper, L. H. (2004). The induction of acute ileitis by a single microbial antigen of Toxoplasma gondii . Journal of Immunology 173, 27252735.Google Scholar
Racoosin, E. L. and Beverley, S. M. (1997). Leishmania major: promastigotes induce expression of a subset of chemokine genes in murine macrophages. Experimental Parasitology 85, 283295.Google Scholar
Rajagopalan, L. and Rajarathnam, K. (2006). Structural basis of chemokine receptor function–a model for binding affinity and ligand selectivity. Bioscience Reports 26, 325339.Google Scholar
Raz, E. and Mahabaleshwar, H. (2009). Chemokine signaling in embryonic cell migration: a fisheye view. Development 136, 12231229.Google Scholar
Ritter, U., Moll, H., Laskay, T., Brocker, E., Velazco, O., Becker, I. and Gillitzer, R. (1996). Differential expression of chemokines in patients with localized and diffuse cutaneous American leishmaniasis. Journal of Infectious Diseases 173, 699709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, I. A., Mazotto, A. M., Cardoso, V., Alves, R. L., Amaral, A. C., Silva, J. R., Pinheiro, A. S. and Vermelho, A. B. (2015). Natural products: insights into leishmaniasis inflammatory response. Mediators of Inflammation 2015, 835910.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Sosa, M., Rosas, L. E., Terrazas, L. I., Lu, B., Gerard, C. and Satoskar, A. R. (2003). CC chemokine receptor 1 enhances susceptibility to Leishmania major during early phase of infection. Immunology and Cell Biology 81, 114120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rostene, W., Kitabgi, P. and Parsadaniantz, S. M. (2007). Chemokines: a new class of neuromodulator? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8, 895903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rot, A. (2005). Contribution of Duffy antigen to chemokine function. Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews 16, 687694.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, M. E. (2000). Chemokine knockout mice. Methods in Molecular Biology 138, 253257.Google Scholar
Ruffini, P. A., Morandi, P., Cabioglu, N., Altundag, K. and Cristofanilli, M. (2007). Manipulating the chemokine-chemokine receptor network to treat cancer. Cancer 109, 23922404.Google Scholar
Sallusto, F., Lenig, D., Mackay, C. R. and Lanzavecchia, A. (1998). Flexible programs of chemokine receptor expression on human polarized T helper 1 and 2 lymphocytes. Journal of Experimental Medicine 187, 875883.Google Scholar
Sallusto, F., Palermo, B., Lenig, D., Miettinen, M., Matikainen, S., Julkunen, I., Forster, R., Burgstahler, R., Lipp, M. and Lanzavecchia, A. (1999). Distinct patterns and kinetics of chemokine production regulate dendritic cell function. European Journal of Immunology 29, 16171625.Google Scholar
Sanecka, A. and Frickel, E. M. (2012). Use and abuse of dendritic cells by Toxoplasma gondii . Virulence 3, 678689.Google Scholar
Sato, N., Kuziel, W. A., Melby, P. C., Reddick, R. L., Kostecki, V., Zhao, W., Maeda, N., Ahuja, S. K. and Ahuja, S. S. (1999). Defects in the generation of IFN-gamma are overcome to control infection with Leishmania donovani in CC chemokine receptor (CCR) 5-, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha-, or CCR2-deficient mice. Journal of Immunology 163, 55195525.Google Scholar
Sato, N., Ahuja, S. K., Quinones, M., Kostecki, V., Reddick, R. L., Melby, P. C., Kuziel, W. A. and Ahuja, S. S. (2000). CC chemokine receptor (CCR)2 is required for langerhans cell migration and localization of T helper cell type 1 (Th1)-inducing dendritic cells. Absence of CCR2 shifts the Leishmania major-resistant phenotype to a susceptible state dominated by Th2 cytokines, b cell outgrowth, and sustained neutrophilic inflammation. Journal of Experimental Medicine 192, 205218.Google Scholar
Schall, T. J., Bacon, K., Toy, K. J. and Goeddel, D. V. (1990). Selective attraction of monocytes and T lymphocytes of the memory phenotype by cytokine RANTES. Nature 347, 669671.Google Scholar
Schofield, L., Villaquiran, J., Ferreira, A., Schellekens, H., Nussenzweig, R. and Nussenzweig, V. (1987). Gamma interferon, CD8+ T cells and antibodies required for immunity to malaria sporozoites. Nature 330, 664666.Google Scholar
Schulthess, J., Meresse, B., Ramiro-Puig, E., Montcuquet, N., Darche, S., Bègue, B., Ruemmele, F., Combadière, C., Di Santo, J. P., Buzoni-Gatel, D. and Cerf-Bensussan, N. (2012). Interleukin-15-dependent NKp46+ innate lymphoid cells control intestinal inflammation by recruiting inflammatory monocytes. Immunity 37, 108121.Google Scholar
Serbina, N. V. and Pamer, E. G. (2006). Monocyte emigration from bone marrow during bacterial infection requires signals mediated by chemokine receptor CCR2. Nature Immunology 7, 311317.Google Scholar
Shapira, M. and Zinoviev, A. (2011). Leishmania parasites act as a Trojan horse that paralyzes the translation system of host macrophages. Cell Host & Microbe 9, 257259.Google Scholar
Shi, C. and Pamer, E. G. (2011). Monocyte recruitment during infection and inflammation. Nature Reviews. Immunology 11, 762774.Google Scholar
Shi, C., Jia, T., Mendez-Ferrer, S., Hohl, T. M., Serbina, N. V., Lipuma, L., Leiner, I., Li, M. O., Frenette, P. S. and Pamer, E. G. (2011). Bone marrow mesenchymal stem and progenitor cells induce monocyte emigration in response to circulating toll-like receptor ligands. Immunity 34, 590601.Google Scholar
Speer, C. A. and Dubey, J. P. (1998). Ultrastructure of early stages of infections in mice fed Toxoplasma gondii oocysts. Parasitology 116(Pt 1), 3542.Google Scholar
Sponaas, A. M., Freitas do Rosario, A. P., Voisine, C., Mastelic, B., Thompson, J., Koernig, S., Jarra, W., Renia, L., Mauduit, M., Potocnik, A. J. and Langhorne, J. (2009). Migrating monocytes recruited to the spleen play an important role in control of blood stage malaria. Blood 114, 55225531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, K., Cockburn, I. A., Swaim, A., Thompson, L. E., Tripathi, A., Fletcher, C. A., Shirk, E. M., Sun, H., Kowalska, M. A., Fox-Talbot, K., Sullivan, D., Zavala, F. and Morrell, C. N. (2008). Platelet factor 4 mediates inflammation in experimental cerebral malaria. Cell Host & Microbe 4, 179187.Google Scholar
Steege, J. C., Buurman, W. A. and Forget, P. P. (1997). The neonatal development of intraepithelial and lamina propria lymphocytes in the murine small intestine. Developmental Immunology 5, 121128.Google Scholar
Steigerwald, M. and Moll, H. (2005). Leishmania major modulates chemokine and chemokine receptor expression by dendritic cells and affects their migratory capacity. Infection and Immunity 73, 25642567.Google Scholar
Teixeira, M. J., Teixeira, C. R., Andrade, B. B., Barral-Netto, M. and Barral, A. (2006). Chemokines in host–parasite interactions in leishmaniasis. Trends in Parasitology 22, 3240.Google Scholar
Torre, D., Speranza, F., Giola, M., Matteelli, A., Tambini, R. and Biondi, G. (2002). Role of Th1 and Th2 cytokines in immune response to uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 9, 348351.Google Scholar
Tsou, C. L., Peters, W., Si, Y., Slaymaker, S., Aslanian, A. M., Weisberg, S. P., Mack, M. and Charo, I. F. (2007). Critical roles for CCR2 and MCP-3 in monocyte mobilization from bone marrow and recruitment to inflammatory sites. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 117, 902909.Google Scholar
Tuteja, R. (2007). Malaria – an overview. The FEBS Journal 274, 46704679.Google Scholar
Tzipori, S. and Ward, H. (2002). Cryptosporidiosis: biology, pathogenesis and disease. Microbes and Infection 4, 10471058.Google Scholar
Ubogu, E. E., Callahan, M. K., Tucky, B. H. and Ransohoff, R. M. (2006). CCR5 expression on monocytes and T cells: modulation by transmigration across the blood-brain barrier in vitro . Cellular Immunology 243, 1929.Google Scholar
Ulvmar, M. H., Hub, E. and Rot, A. (2011). Atypical chemokine receptors. Experimental Cell Research 317, 556568.Google Scholar
van Zandbergen, G., Klinger, M., Mueller, A., Dannenberg, S., Gebert, A., Solbach, W. and Laskay, T. (2004). Cutting edge: neutrophil granulocyte serves as a vector for Leishmania entry into macrophages. Journal of Immunology 173, 65216525.Google Scholar
Wang, H.-C., Dann, S. M., Okhuysen, P. C., Lewis, D. E., Chappell, C. L., Adler, D. G. and White, A. C. (2007). High levels of CXCL10 are produced by intestinal epithelial cells in AIDS patients with active cryptosporidiosis but not after reconstitution of immunity. Infection and Immunity 75, 481487.Google Scholar
Watts, A. O., Verkaar, F., van der Lee, M. M., Timmerman, C. A., Kuijer, M., van Offenbeek, J., van Lith, L. H., Smit, M. J., Leurs, R., Zaman, G. J. and Vischer, H. F. (2013). beta-Arrestin recruitment and G protein signaling by the atypical human chemokine decoy receptor CCX-CKR. Journal of Biological Chemistry 288, 71697181.Google Scholar
Weidanz, W. P., LaFleur, G., Brown, A., Burns, J. M. Jr., Gramaglia, I. and van der Heyde, H. C. (2010). Gammadelta T cells but not NK cells are essential for cell-mediated immunity against Plasmodium chabaudi malaria. Infection and Immunity 78, 43314340.Google Scholar
Wheeler, R. J., Gluenz, E. and Gull, K. (2011). The cell cycle of Leishmania: morphogenetic events and their implications for parasite biology. Molecular Microbiology 79, 647662.Google Scholar
Wilson, N. O., Jain, V., Roberts, C. E., Lucchi, N., Joel, P. K., Singh, M. P., Nagpal, A. C., Dash, A. P., Udhayakumar, V., Singh, N. and Stiles, J. K. (2011). CXCL4 and CXCL10 predict risk of fatal cerebral malaria. Disease Markers 30, 3949.Google Scholar
Wong, M. M. and Fish, E. N. (2003). Chemokines: attractive mediators of the immune response. Seminars in Immunology 15, 514.Google Scholar
Wu, X., Lee, V. C., Chevalier, E. and Hwang, S. T. (2009). Chemokine receptors as targets for cancer therapy. Current Pharmaceutical Design 15, 742757.Google Scholar
Wykes, M. N. and Horne-Debets, J. (2012). Dendritic cells: the Trojan horse of malaria? International Journal for Parasitology 42, 583587.Google Scholar
Wykes, M. N., Kay, J. G., Manderson, A., Liu, X. Q., Brown, D. L., Richard, D. J., Wipasa, J., Jiang, S. H., Jones, M. K., Janse, C. J., Waters, A. P., Pierce, S. K., Miller, L. H., Stow, J. L. and Good, M. F. (2011). Rodent blood-stage Plasmodium survive in dendritic cells that infect naive mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 1120511210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, D., Chen, Q., Hoover, D. M., Staley, P., Tucker, K. D., Lubkowski, J. and Oppenheim, J. J. (2003). Many chemokines including CCL20/MIP-3 alpha display antimicrobial activity. Journal of Leukocyte Biology 74, 448455.Google Scholar
Yung, S. C. and Murphy, P. M. (2012). Antimicrobial chemokines. Frontiers in Immunology 3, 276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, Y., Mangalmurti, N. S., Xiong, Z., Prakash, B., Guo, F., Stolz, D. B. and Lee, J. S. (2011). Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines mediates chemokine endocytosis through a macropinocytosis-like process in endothelial cells. PLoS ONE 6, e29624.Google Scholar
Zlotnik, A. and Yoshie, O. (2012). The chemokine superfamily revisited. Immunity 36, 705716.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Chemokine superfamily classification. Chemokines are classified based on the arrangement of conserved cysteine motifs (shown in hollow lettering below) in the amino terminus. (A) XC chemokines only contains two conserved cysteine residues. There are only two members of this family in humans (XCL1, XCL2), with both binding the XCR1 receptor. (B) The CC chemokines are defined by having two of the first four conserved cysteine residues adjacent to each other. There are at least 28 known members of this group in humans. (C) The CXC chemokines are so called due to the presence of an amino acid separating the first two of the conserved cysteines. In humans, 17 CXC chemokines have been described. (D) The CX3C chemokine group contains one member, CX3CL1, which binds to the CX3CR1 receptor, and is defined by the presence of three amino acids separating the first two cysteine residues, as well as a mucin-like domain (indicated by grey band).

Figure 1

Table 1. Atypical chemokine receptors (ACKRs) and known ligands in humans

Figure 2

Table 2. Chemokine/chemokine receptor knockout mice used in parasite studies

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Leucocyte trafficking during T. gondii infection. (A) Known CCR5 ligands. (B) Infection of host immune cells results in the production of a number of inflammatory chemokines, which serve to recruit more immune cells. Promotion of a Th1-type response, with the involvement of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells is critical for the destruction of infected host cells.