4.6 Article

STAT1 Negatively Regulates Lung Basophil IL-4 Expression Induced by Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 183, 期 3, 页码 2016-2026

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0803167

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL069949, AI054660, HL090664, A1070672, GM015431, T32 GM07569]
  2. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma
  3. Immunology Education and Research Trust Award
  4. Thrasher Research Foundation New Researcher Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IL-4 contributes to immuntopathology induced in mice by primary respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. However, the cellular source of IL-4 in RSV infection is unknown. We identified CD3(-)CD49b(+) cells as the predominant source of IL-4 in the lungs of RSV-infected BALB/c mice. We ruled out T cells, NK cells, NKT cells, mast cells, and eosinophils as IL-4 expressors in RSV infection by flow cytometry. Using IL4 GFP reporter mice (4get) mice, we identified the IL-4-expressing cells in RSV infection as basophils (CD3(-)CD49b(+)Fc epsilon RI(+)c-kit(-)). Because STAT1(-/-) mice have an enhanced Th2-type response to RSV infection, we also sought to determine the cellular source and role of IL-4 in RSV-infected STAT1(-/-) mice. RSV infection resulted in significantly more IL-4-expressing CD3(-)CD49b(+) cells in the lungs of STAT1(-/-) mice than in BALB/c mice. CD49b(+)IL-4(+) cells sorted from the lungs of RSV-infected STAT1(-/-) mice and stained with Wright-Giemsa had basophil characteristics. As in wild-type BALB/c mice, IL-4 contributed to lung histopathology in RSV-infected STAT1(-/-) mice. Depletion of basophils in RSV-infected STAT1(-/-) mice reduced lung IL-4 expression. Thus, we show for the first time that a respiratory virus (RSV) induced basophil accumulation in vivo. Basophils were the primary source of IL-4 in the lung in RSV infection, and STAT1 was a negative regulator of virus-induced basophil IL-4 expression. The Journal of Immunology, 2009, 183: 2016-2026.

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