4.6 Article

Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase PH20 Does Not Stimulate an Acute Inflammatory Response and Inhibits Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Neutrophil Recruitment in the Air Pouch Model of Inflammation

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 192, 期 11, 页码 5285-5295

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1303060

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyaluronidase (Hyal) and low m.w. hyaluronan (LMW HA) fragments have been widely reported to stimulate the innate immune response. However, most hyaluronidases used were purified from animal tissues (e.g., bovine testis Hyal [BTH]), and contain endotoxin and other unrelated proteins. We tested a highly purified recombinant human Hyal (rHuPH20) and endotoxin-free HA fragments from M-r 5,000 to 1,500,000 in the rodent air pouch model of inflammation to determine their potential for stimulation of the innate immune response. Exogenous LMW HA fragments (average Mr 200,000) failed to induce either cytokine/chemokine production or neutrophil infiltration into the air pouch. Challenging the air pouch with LPS or BTH stimulated production of cytokines and chemokines but rHuPH20 did not, suggesting that neither PH20 nor generation of LMW HA fragments in situ stimulates cytokine and chemokine production. LPS and BTH also induced neutrophil infiltration into the air pouch, which was not observed with rHuPH20 treatment. Endotoxin-depleted BTH had much reduced proinflammatory activity, suggesting that the difference in inflammatory responses between rHuPH20 and BTH is likely due to endotoxin contaminants in BTH. When rHuPH20 was dosed with LPS, the induction of cytokines and chemokines was the same as LPS alone, but neutrophil infiltration was inhibited, likely by interrupting HA-CD44 interaction. Our results indicate that neither rHuPH20 nor its directly generated HA catabolites have inflammatory properties in the air pouch model, and rHuPH20 can instead inhibit some aspects of inflammation, such as neutrophil infiltration into the air pouch.

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