4.3 Article

Distorted expression of dopamine receptor genes in systemic lupus erythematosus

Journal

IMMUNOBIOLOGY
Volume 218, Issue 7, Pages 979-983

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.imbio.2012.11.002

Keywords

Real-time PCR; T cells; Dopamine

Categories

Funding

  1. NIGEB Grant [0361]
  2. Department of Rheumatology of Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Tehran, Iran)
  3. Inserm Institutional Grants (Paris, France)
  4. University of Paris Diderot (Sorbonne Paris Cite)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several observations suggest that alterations in the neurotransmitter dopamine and/or its receptors could be associated with the pathophysiology of lupus. We therefore assessed expression of the five dopamine receptor genes in a cohort of patients. We found that all receptors are expressed in lupus peripheral blood cells. We also discovered that dopamine receptor 2 gene (DR2) was underexpressed, and that DR4 was overexpressed in lupus patients, as compared to controls. Cell sorting of peripheral T- and B-lymphocytes disclosed that the altered DR2 and DR4 expressions were borne by T-cells. These distorted expressions of DR2 and DR4 could influence immune functions in lupus through several mechanisms. Since DR2 can be effective in regulating the activation and differentiation of naive CD4(+) cells by promoting polarization toward regulatory T-cells, the underexpression of DR2 we have observed may account, at least in part, for the reduction of regulatory T-cell function and/or numbers in lupus. In addition to providing novel insight into disease pathogenesis, our findings may have therapeutic implications. Because DR4 can be effective in triggering T-cell quiescence, its overexpression on lupus T cells suggests that inducing quiescence using DR4-specific agonists may represent a useful strategy in the treatment of lupus. (c) 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available