4.6 Article

Ischemic Injury Enhances Dendritic Cell Immunogenicity via TLR4 and NF-κB Activation

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 184, 期 6, 页码 2939-2948

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0901889

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Kidney Foundation Clinical Scientist Award
  2. Roche Organ Transplantation Research Foundation
  3. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
  4. John Merrill Transplant Scholar

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ischemic (isc) injury during the course of transplantation enhances the immunogenicity of allografts and thus results in poorer graft outcome. Given the central role of dendritic cells (DCs) in mounting alloimmune responses, activation of donor DCs by ischemia may have a primary function in the increased immunogenicity of isc allografts. In this study, we sought to investigate the effect of ischemia on DC activity in vitro. Following induction of ischemia, bone marrow-derived DCs were shown to augment allogeneic T cell proliferation as well as the IFN-gamma response. Isc DCs produced greater levels of IL-6, and isc insult was concurrent with NF-kappa B activation. TLR4 ligation was also shown to occur in isc DCs, most likely in response to the endogenous ligand heat shock protein 70, which was found to be elevated in DCs following isc injury, and lack of TLR4 abrogated the observed effects of isc DCs. As compared with control DCs, isc DCs injected into the footpads of mice demonstrated enhanced migration, which was concomitant with increased recipient T cell activity. Moreover, isc DCs underwent a greater degree of apoptosis in the lymph nodes of injected mice, which may further demonstrate enhanced immunogenicity of isc DCs. We thus show that isc injury of DCs enhances DC function, augments the allogeneic T cell response, and occurs via ligation of TLR4, followed by activation of NF-kappa B. These data may serve to identify novel therapeutic targets to attenuate graft immunogenicity following ischemia. The Journal of Immunology, 2010, 184: 2939-2948.

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