4.4 Article

Regulatory T cells in the actinic cheilitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL PATHOLOGY & MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 10, 页码 754-760

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jop.12207

关键词

actinic cheilitis; IL-10; potentially malignant lesion; Tregs

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo-FAPESP [2006/04264-9]
  2. FAPESP [2009/14127-7]
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  4. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundActinic cheilitis (AC) is an oral potentially malignant lesion which is the counterpart of actinic keratosis of the skin and has potential to develop into squamous cell carcinoma. Regulatory T cells (Tregs) have a critical role in modulating the antitumor immune responses. The presence of regulatory T cells in potentially malignant lesions has not been described. We chose investigate the involvement of regulatory T cells in potentially malignant lesions. MethodsThe frequency, phenotype, and activity of CD4+CD25+ T cells isolated from blood and lesion of AC patients were analyzed by flow cytometry. Cytokines were quantified by ELISA. Data were compared with samples from healthy subjects. ResultsThe frequency and suppressor activity of circulating CD4+CD25+ T cells was similar in AC patients and control subjects. However, the frequencies of IL-10-positive Tregs were higher in AC patients, and these cells inhibited interferon-gamma (IFN-) and increased interleukin (IL)-10 productions in co-cultures. Furthermore, CD4+CD25+ T cells accumulate in AC lesions. Lesions-derived regulatory T cells suppressed lymphocyte proliferation and pro-inflammatory cytokine production. Moreover, high levels of IL-10 and transforming growth factor- (TGF-), and low IFN- were detected in the potentially malignant lesions. ConclusionTherefore, our data show that Tregs accumulate in AC lesions, and these cells could be suppressing immune responses in a potentially malignant microenvironment.

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

4.4
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