4.5 Article

CD14+CD33+ myeloid cell-CCL11-eosinophil signature in ulcerative colitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY
卷 94, 期 5, 页码 1061-1070

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1189/jlb.1212640

关键词

inflammatory bowel disease; eotaxins; chemokine

资金

  1. Bengt Ihres Foundation
  2. Swedish Medical Society
  3. U.S. National Institutes of Health [A1073553]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the hypothesis that eotaxins (CCL11, CCL24, and CCL26) and IL-5 contribute to eosinophil recruitment to the intestine in UC and that intestinal macrophages are important producers of CCL11 in this disease. Peripheral blood and rectal biopsy samples were obtained from patients with active (n=18) and quiescent UC (n=9), and control patients (n=7). Eosinophil and macrophage levels and activation were analyzed by flow cytometry. Rectal mRNA levels of CCL11, CCL24, CCL26, and IL-5 were determined by qRT-PCR. The cellular source of CCL11 was visualized by immunofluorescence analyses. Eosinophil numbers were elevated in the blood and rectum of active and quiescent UC patients compared with controls. Levels of activated eosinophils (CD66b(high)) correlated with disease severity. Rectal CCL11, CCL24, and CCL26 mRNA levels were increased in active UC, whereas only CCL11 was elevated in quiescent UC. Levels of CCL11, but not CCL24 and CCL26, positively correlated with eosinophil numbers. Numbers of CD14(+)CD33(+) cells correlated with CCL11 and eosinophil levels. Immunofluorescence analyses revealed the presence of CD14(+)CCL11(+) mononuclear cells in colonic biopsies in UC. These results support the hypothesis that CCL11 contributes to eosinophil recruitment in UC and that intestinal myeloid cells are a source of CCL11. Interestingly, rectal levels of CCL24, CCL26, and IL-5 only increase during active UC, coinciding with further elevation of eosinophil numbers and with the activation of rectal eosinophils. In conclusion, there is a link among CD14(+)CD33(+) myeloid cells, CCL11, and eosinophils in adult UC.

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

4.5
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