4.6 Article

Human NK Cells Proliferate and Die In Vivo More Rapidly than T Cells in Healthy Young and Elderly Adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 186, 期 8, 页码 4590-4598

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1002732

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI056506, AG026530]
  2. University of Kentucky Clinical Research Development and Operations Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NK cells are essential for health, yet little is known about human NK turnover in vivo. In both young and elderly women, all NK subsets proliferated and died more rapidly than T cells. CD56(bright) NK cells proliferated rapidly but died relatively slowly, suggesting that proliferating CD56(bright) cells differentiate into CD56(dim) NK cells in vivo. The relationship between CD56(dim) and CD56(bright) proliferating cells indicates that proliferating CD56(dim) cells both self-renew and are derived from proliferating CD56(bright) NK cells. Our data suggest that some dying CD56(dim) cells become CD16(+)CD56(-) NK cells and that CD16(-)CD56(low) NK cells respond rapidly to cellular and cytokine stimulation. We propose a model in which all NK cell subsets are in dynamic flux. About half of CD56(dim) NK cells expressed CD57, which was weakly associated with low proliferation. Surprisingly, CD57 expression was associated with higher proliferation rates in both CD8(+) and CD8(-) T cells. Therefore, CD57 is not a reliable marker of senescent, nonproliferative T cells in vivo. NKG2A expression declined with age on both NK cells and T cells. Killer cell Ig-like receptor expression increased with age on T cells but not on NK cells. Although the percentage of CD56(bright) NK cells declined with age and the percentage of CD56(dim) NK cells increased with age, there were no significant age-related proliferation or apoptosis differences for these two populations or for total NK cells. In vivo human NK cell turnover is rapid in both young and elderly adults. The Journal of Immunology, 2011, 186: 4590-4598.

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