4.6 Article

Monocyte subtypes predict clinical course and prognosis in human stroke

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2009.25

关键词

monocyte subtypes; platelet-monocyte interactions; prognosis; stroke

资金

  1. Fundacion de Investigaciones Cientificas [PI06/0909]
  2. Instituto Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The number of circulating monocytes increases after stroke. In this study, we assessed the time course and phenotype of monocyte subsets and their relationship with the clinical course and outcome in 46 consecutive stroke patients and 13 age-matched controls. The proportion of the most abundant 'classical' CD14(high)CD16- monocytes did not change after stroke, whereas that of CD14(high)CD16+ monocytes increased and CD14(dim)CD16+ monocytes decreased. CD14(high)CD16+ monocytes had the highest expression of TLR2, HLA-DR and the angiogenic marker, Tie-2; CD14(dim)CD16+ monocytes had the highest expression of costimulatory CD86 and adhesion molecule CD49d. Platelet-monocyte interactions were highest in CD14(high)CD16- monocytes and lowest in CD14(dim)CD16+ monocytes. In adjusted models, 1/CD14(high)CD16- monocytes were associated with poor outcome (OR: 1.38), higher mortality (OR: 1.40) and early clinical worsening (OR: 1.29); 2/CD14(high)CD16+ monocytes were inversely related to mortality (OR: 0.32); and 3/CD14(dim)CD16+ monocytes were inversely related to poor outcome (OR: 0.74) and infarction size (r=-0.45; P=0.02). These results illustrate that the predominant monocyte subtype conveys harmful effects after stroke, which include stronger interaction with platelets. Alternatively, rarer subpopulations of monocytes are beneficial with a phenotype that could promote tissue repair and angiogenesis. Therefore, monitoring of monocyte subtypes may emerge as a useful tool at the bedside for stroke patients. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2009) 29, 994-1002; doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.25; published online 18 March 2009

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

4.6
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