4.7 Article

Somatostatin Expression in Human Hair Follicles and Its Potential Role in Immune Privilege

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
卷 133, 期 7, 页码 1722-1730

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/jid.2013.53

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Dermatology Foundation
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [NSM-72203]
  3. CIHR Skin Research Training Center (CIHR-SRTC)
  4. CIHR-Frederick Banting and Charles Best graduate scholarship [GSD-104549]
  5. CIHR [MSH-95328]
  6. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research [MSFHR-CI-SCH-00480(06-1)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune privilege (IP) is believed to exist in the anagen hair follicle (HF). Studies have shown that downregulation of major histocompatibility complex Class I occurs and immunosuppressive factors are expressed in the HF bulb and bulge. However, demonstration and quantification of functional IP in HF cells are required. We examined the middle (sheath) and lower (bulb) portions of the human HF using quantitative real-time RT-PCR (qPCR), immunohistology, ELISA, in vitro coculture with peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and flow cytometry. We found that HF cells, relative to non-follicular epidermal cells, failed to promote allogeneic PBMC proliferation and CD4(+) and CD8(+) IFN gamma production. By qPCR, we found significant downregulation of Class I and Class II HLA alleles in both the bulb and sheath, and upregulation of multiple immunoregulatory genes. It is noteworthy that somatostatin (SST) was significantly upregulated relative to epidermis. By immunohistochemistry, SST was most strongly expressed in the HF outer root sheath, and, by ELISA, cultured sheath cells secreted SST. PBMCs, cultured with stimulatory allogeneic epidermal cells and SST, secreted significantly less IFN gamma than controls. Addition of SST antagonists to PBMCs cocultured with allogeneic HF cells increased IFN gamma secretion. The data identify SST as a secretory factor potentially contributing to the HF IP repertoire.

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

4.7
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