4.3 Article

Comparison of allergic lung disease in three mouse strains after systemic or mucosal sensitization with ovalbumin antigen

期刊

IMMUNOGENETICS
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 199-207

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00251-008-0353-8

关键词

Asthma; Genetic variability; Pulmonary function; Th2-type response

资金

  1. CEMALB of UNC-CA [R82952201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Murine models of allergic lung disease have many similar traits to asthma in humans and can be used to investigate mechanisms of allergic sensitization and susceptibility factors associated with disease severity. The purpose of this study was to determine strain differences in allergic airway inflammation, immunoglobulin production, and changes in respiratory responses between systemic and mucosal sensitization routes in BALB/cJ, FVB/NJ, and C57BL/6J, and to provide correlations between immune and pathophysiological endpoints. After a single intranasal ovalbumin (OVA) challenge, all three strains of mice systemically sensitized with OVA and adjuvant exhibited higher airflow limitation than non-sensitized mice. No changes were seen in mice that were pre-sensitized via the nose with OVA. Systemic sensitization resulted in an elevated response to methacholine (MCH) in BALB/cJ and FVB/NJ mice and elevated total and OVA-specific IgE levels and pulmonary eosinophils in all three strains. The mucosal sensitization and challenge produced weaker responses in the same general pattern with the C57BL/6J strain producing less serum IgE, IL5, IL13, and eosinophils in lung fluid than the other two strains. The converse was found for IL6 where the C57BL/6J mice had more than twice the amount of this cytokine. The results show that the FVB/NJ and BALB/cJ mice are higher Th2-responders than the C57BL/6J mice and that the levels of pulmonary eosinophilia and cytokines did not fully track with MCH responsiveness. These differences illustrate the need to assess multiple endpoints to provide clearer associations between immune responses and type and severity of allergic lung disease.

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

4.3
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