4.5 Article

Regulatory T Cells in Mouse Periapical Lesions

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 35, Issue 9, Pages 1229-1233

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.06.006

Keywords

Flow cytometry; FOXP3/GFP knock-in; in situ hybridization; periapical lesions; pulp infection; T-regulatory cells

Funding

  1. AAE Foundation
  2. Krakow Endodontic Research Fund [R01 DE-09018, K22 DE-16309, DE-18499]
  3. NIDCR/NIH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: T-regulatory (Treg, CD4+ FOXP3+) cells constitute a unique subpopulation of CD4+ T cells that inhibit T-cell responses and prevent disease development/exacerbation in models of autoimmunity. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that Treg cells are induced in periapical lesions by dental pulp infection. Methods: In situ hybridization (ISH) was used to localize FOXP3+ cells on day 21 after pulp exposure of the first molar teeth and infection with bacteria from the oral environment. FOXP3/GFP knock-in transgenic mice were used to quantify FOXP3+ Treg cells that infiltrate into periapical lesions by flow cytometry on days 7, 14, and 21 after infection. Periodontal ligament from uninfected teeth served as a negative control. Results: ISH showed strong signals that showed the presence of FOXP3+ cells mainly at the periphery of periapical lesions. In contrast, no positive cells were present in the periodontal ligament of uninfected controls. Flow cytometry showed an increase in the number of FOXP3+ Treg beginning between day 7 and day 14 (0.69% of the infiltrate) after infection and increased to day 21 (0.94%) (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively, vs uninfected controls). Treg were also increased in number in draining cervical lymph nodes after pulpal infection. Conclusions:These results show that Treg cells are induced to infiltrate into periapical lesions by pulpal infection and suggest that they increase in a time-dependent manner. (J Endod 2009;35:1229-1233)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available