4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Peritoneal fluid from endometriosis patients switches differentiation of monocytes from dendritic cells to macrophages

期刊

JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 63-74

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jri.2007.03.013

关键词

endometriosis; dendritic cell; monocyte; macrophage; IL-6

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunological abnormalities of cell-mediated and humoral immunity might be associated with the pathogenesis of endometriosis. This study has examined the effects of peritoneal fluid obtained from patients with endometriosis (ePF) on the phenotypic characteristics of macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs) derived from monocytes. Monocytes were obtained from healthy young volunteers and cultured with ePF (n = 12) or a control PF (cPF) (n = 5) in the presence or absence of macrophage-colony stimulating factor (M-CSF) or IL-4 plus granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF). The OF was demonstrated to increase expression levels of CD14 and CD64 on isolated monocytes in the presence or absence of M-CSF Compared with OF, addition of 10% ePF to GM-CSF plus IL-4-treated monocytes significantly down-regulated CD1a expression and up-regulated CD64 expression, but did not enhance expression levels of class II MHC. ePF had no effect, however, on tumor necrosis factor-a-induced maturation of DC. Levels of IL-6, IL-10 and M-CSF production were higher in ePF-treated than cPF-treated monocytes for both cell culture conditions with GM-CSF plus IL-4 and M-CSF. A neutralizing IL-6 antibody, but not an IL-10 antibody, abrogated the ePF-induced down-regulation of CD1a, up-regulation of CD64 and secretion of M-CSF. These results suggest that ePF favorably induces monocyte differentiation toward macrophages rather than DCs, and that this effect is mediated by IL-6. A reciprocal mode of cell differentiation between macrophages and DCs in response to ePF may be related to the pathogenesis of endometriosis. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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