4.7 Article

Toll-like receptor 4 ligation enforces tolerogenic properties of oral mucosal Langerhans cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 121, 期 2, 页码 368-374

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.09.045

关键词

human; Toll-like receptors; Langerhans cells; immunotherapy; tolerance; mucosa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite high bacterial colonization, acute infections are rare in the oral mucosa, implicating tolerogenic predominance. Bacterial antigens like LPSs are recognized by innate immunity receptors such as Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), associated with LPS receptor (CD14). Objectives: Toll-like receptor 4 agonist monosphoryl lipid A has been successfully used as adjuvant in subcutaneous immunotherapy, suggesting reinforcement of allergen-specific tolerance. Recently sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been shown to be an effective alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy. We observed CD14 expression on human oral Langerhans cells (oLCs), representing a major target of SLIT. However, not much is known about TLR4 expression and its effect on oLCs. Methods: Cell suspensions were obtained by trypsinization of human oral mucosa and analyzed by flow cytometry, RT-PCR, cytometric bead arrays, ELISA, and mixed lymphocyte reactions. Results: We could show that oLCs express TLR4, and its ligation by monosphoryl lipid A upregulated expression of coinhibitory molecules B7-H1 and B7-H3 while surface expression of costimulatory molecule CD86 was concomitantly decreased. Furthermore, TLR4 ligation on oLCs increased their release of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 and decreased their stimulatory capacity toward T cells. Moreover, TLR4-ligation on oLCs induced IL-10, TGF-beta 1, Forkhead box protein 3, IFN-gamma, and IL-2 production in T cells. Conclusion: In view of these data, TLR4-ligation on oLCs might not only play a role in pathogen recognition for efficient immunity but also contribute to the tolerogenic state predominating in the oral cavity.

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

4.7
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