4.8 Article

Flt3 Signaling-Dependent Dendritic Cells Protect against Atherosclerosis

期刊

IMMUNITY
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 819-831

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.014

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS [GM62116]
  2. National Institutes of Health [AI13013, AI051573]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  4. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, South Korea [2011-0013669]
  5. National Research Laboratory [R0A-2007-000-20016-0]
  6. National Core Research Center from the Ministry of Education, Science & Technology, South Korea [R15-2006-020]
  7. New York Community Trust
  8. NIH/NCRR [5UL1RR024143-05]
  9. National Research Foundation of Korea [2011-0013669, R0A-2007-000-20016-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early events in atherosclerosis occur in the aortic intima and involve monocytes that become macrophages. We looked for these cells in the steady state adult mouse aorta, and surprisingly, we found a dominance of dendritic cells (DCs) in the intima. In contrast to aortic adventitial macrophages, CD11c(+)MHC IIhi DCs were poorly phagocytic but were immune stimulatory. DCs were of two types primarily: classical Flt3-Flt3L signaling-dependent, CD103(+)CD11b(-) DCs and macrophage-colony stimulating factor (M-CSF)-dependent, CD14(+)CD11b(+)DC-SIGN(+) monocyte-derived DCs. Both types expanded during atherosclerosis. By crossing Flt3(-/-) to Ldlr(-/-) atherosclerosis-prone mice, we developed a selective and marked deficiency of classical CD103(+) aortic DCs, and they were associated with exacerbated atherosclerosis without alterations in blood lipids. Concomitantly, the Flt3(-/-) Ldlr(-/-) mice had fewer Foxp3(+) Treg cells and increased inflammatory cytokine mRNAs in the aorta. Therefore, functional DCs are dominant in normal aortic intima and, in contrast to macrophages, CD103(+) classical DCs are associated with atherosclerosis protection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据