4.8 Article

Senescent T-Cell Promote Bone Loss in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00095

Keywords

T-lymphocyte; rheumatoid arthritis; osteoporosis; aging; IL-15

Categories

Funding

  1. Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB), Vienna [15340]
  2. Medical University Graz, Graz

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: T-cells are critical players in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Premature senescence of lymphocytes including the accumulation of senescent CD4(+) T-cells is a hallmark feature of RA. Whether T-cell senescence is associated with bone loss in RA patients is elusive so far. Methods: This includes a prospective study of consecutive patients with RA (n = 107), patients with primary osteopenia/-porosis (n = 75), and healthy individuals (n = 38). Bone mineral density (BMD) was determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan. Flow cytometry, magnetic-associated cell sorting, and cell culture experiments were performed to analyze the pro-osteoclastic phenotype and the function of senescent CD4(+)CD28- T-cells. Results: Patients with osteopenia/-porosis yielded a higher prevalence of senescent CD4(+)CD28- T-cells than individuals with normal BMD, in the RA, as well as in the non-RA cohort. Receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) was expressed at higher levels on CD4(+)CD28- T-cells as compared to CD28(+) T-cells. Stimulation with interleukin-15 led to an up-regulation of RANKL expression, particularly on CD28- T-cells. CD4(+)CD28-T- cells induced osteoclastogenesis more efficiently than CD28(+) T-cells. Conclusion: Our data indicate that senescent T-cells promote osteoclastogenesis more efficiently than conventional CD28(+) T-cells, which might contribute to the pathogenesis of systemic bone loss in RA and primary osteoporosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available