4.6 Article

In Vivo Lipopolysaccharide Exposure of Human Blood Leukocytes Induces Cross-Tolerance to Multiple TLR Ligands

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 183, 期 1, 页码 533-542

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0802189

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vitro and in vivo experiments in mice have shown that exposure of cells to the TLR4 ligand LPS induces tolerance toward a second exposure to LPS and induces cross-tolerance to certain other TLR ligands. Recently, we found that LPS tolerance in experimental human endotoxemia and Gram-negative sepsis is associated with elevated levels of IL-1R-associated kinase M, an intracellular negative regulator of MyD88-dependent TLR signaling. In the present study, we investigated whether in vivo exposure of humans to LPS induces tolerance in circulating leukocytes to other TLR agonists that rely either on MyD88- dependent or on MyD88-independent signaling. Analysis of TNF, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-10 levels in whole blood demonstrated that leukocytes were hyporesponsive to ex vivo LPS restimulation 3-8 h after i.v. LPS injection (4 ng/kg). Reduced cytokine release during the same interval was also observed in whole blood further stimulated with MyD88-dependent ligands for TLR2, TLR5, and TLR7 or with whole bacteria. Strikingly, blood leukocytes were also tolerant to a ligand for TLR3, which signals solely through a MyD88-independent (Toll IL-1R domain-containing adaptor-inducing IFN-beta (TRIF)-dependent) pathway. The hyporesponsiveness of leukocytes to TLR3 ligation was associated with reduced rather than increased levels of the recently identified TRIF inhibitor SARM. Taken together, these data indicate that systemic LPS challenge of human volunteers induces cross-tolerance to multiple TLR ligands that signal in a MyD88-dependent or MyD88-independent manner and suggest that LPS exposure of human blood leukocytes may hamper the inflammatory response to various microbial components. The Journal of Immunology, 2009, 183: 533-542.

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