4.7 Article

B cell depletion therapy ameliorates autoimmune disease through ablation of IL-6-producing B cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 209, 期 5, 页码 1001-1010

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1084/jem.20111675

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Hertie Stiftung
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB-650]
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada New Emerging Team in Clinical Autoimmunity
  5. Centers for Excellence and Commercialization of Research
  6. Medical Research Council
  7. MRC [G0801924, G0901697] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [G0801924, G0901697] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

B cells have paradoxical roles in autoimmunity, exerting both pathogenic and protective effects. Pathogenesis may be antibody independent, as B cell depletion therapy (BCDT) leads to amelioration of disease irrespective of autoantibody ablation. However, the mechanisms of pathogenesis are poorly understood. We demonstrate that BCDT alleviates central nervous system autoimmunity through ablation of IL-6-secreting pathogenic B cells. B cells from mice with experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) secreted elevated levels of IL-6 compared with B cells from naive controls, and mice with a B cell-specific IL-6 deficiency showed less severe disease than mice with wild-type B cells. Moreover, BCDT ameliorated EAE only in mice with IL-6-sufficient B cells. This mechanism of pathogenesis may also operate in multiple sclerosis (MS) because B cells from MS patients produced more IL-6 than B cells from healthy controls, and this abnormality was normalized with B cell reconstitution after Rituximab treatment. This suggests that BCDT improved disease progression, at least partly, by eliminating IL-6-producing B cells in MS patients. Taking these data together, we conclude that IL-6 secretion is a major mechanism of B cell-driven pathogenesis in T cell-mediated autoimmune disease such as EAE and MS.

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