4.8 Article

MMP-1 drives immunopathology in human tuberculosis and transgenic mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 121, 期 5, 页码 1827-1833

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI45666

关键词

-

资金

  1. United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  2. Scadding Morriston Davies Travel Fellowship
  3. NIH [RO1HL086936]
  4. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  5. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2008-21-035, DHCS/06/05/012] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mycobacterium tuberculosis can cause lung tissue damage to spread, but the mechanisms driving this immunopathology are poorly understood. The breakdown of lung matrix involves MMPs, which have a unique ability to degrade fibrillar collagens at neutral pH. To determine whether MMPs play a role in the immunopathology of tuberculosis (TB), we profiled MMPs and their inhibitors, the tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMPs), in sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients with TB and symptomatic controls. MMP-1 concentrations were significantly increased in both HIV-negative and HIV-positive patients with TB, while TIMP concentrations were lower in HIV-negative TB patients. In primary human monocytes, M. tuberculosis infection selectively upregulated MMP1 gene expression and secretion, and Ro32-3555, a specific M MP inhibitor, suppressed M. tuberculosis-driven MMP-1 activity. Since the mouse MMP-1 ortholog is not expressed in the lung and mice infected with M. tuberculosis do not develop tissue destruction equivalent to humans, we infected transgenic mice expressing human MMP-1 with M. tuberculosis to investigate whether MMP-1 caused lung imrnunopathology. In the MMP-1 transgenic mice, M. tuberculosis infection increased MMP-1 expression, resulting in alveolar destruction in lung granulomas and significantly greater collagen breakdown. In summary, MMP-1 may drive tissue destruction in TB and represents a therapeutic target to limit immunopathology.

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