4.6 Article

CD11b immunophenotyping identifies inflammatory profiles in the mouse and human lungs

Journal

MUCOSAL IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 550-563

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/mi.2015.84

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. AMREP flow cytometry facility
  2. NHMRC, Australia
  3. Victorian State Government Operational Infrastructure Scheme
  4. Cancer Research Institute Scholarship
  5. Nick Christopher Top-Up Scholarship
  6. NHMRC
  7. [1008298]
  8. [1080274]
  9. [1067244]
  10. [1071916]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development of easily accessible tools for human immunophenotyping to classify patients into discrete disease endotypes is advancing personalized therapy. However, no systematic approach has been developed for the study of inflammatory lung diseases with often complex and highly heterogeneous disease etiologies. We have devised an internally standardized flow cytometry approach that can identify parallel inflammatory alveolar macrophage phenotypes in both the mouse and human lungs. In mice, lung innate immune cell alterations during endotoxin challenge, influenza virus infection, and in two genetic models of chronic obstructive lung disease could be segregated based on the presence or absence of CD11b alveolar macrophage upregulation and lung eosinophilia. Additionally, heightened alveolar macrophage CD11b expression was a novel feature of acute lung exacerbations in the SHIP-1(-/-) model of chronic obstructive lung disease, and anti-CD11b antibody administration selectively blocked inflammatory CD11b(pos) but not homeostatic CD11b(neg) alveolar macrophages in vivo. The identification of analogous profiles in respiratory disease patients highlights this approach as a translational avenue for lung disease endotyping and suggests that heterogeneous innate immune cell phenotypes are an underappreciated component of the human lung disease microenvironment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available