4.5 Article

Imbalance in T-cell and cytokine profiles in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 300, 期 1-2, 页码 135-141

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2010.08.053

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; T-cells; Memory cells; Cytokines; Flow cytometry; Fluorescent bead-based immunoassay

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [MSM0021622404, 2B08066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is characterized by autoimmune attack leading to demyelination of the white matter in the central nervous system with devastating clinical consequences. Several immune-mediated destruction mechanisms were previously proposed including different T-cell subsets but complex view on immune system function in patients with MS is missing. In the present study. T-lymphocyte populations and pro-inflammatory as well as suppressive cytokine profiles were evaluated in detail in previously untreated patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). CD4(+) and CD8(+) naive, central memory (Tcm), effector memory (Tem), terminal effector memory (Ttem), CD4(+) regulatory T-cells (Treg) and CD8+ T-suppressor cells (Ts) were analysed using flow cytometry, and levels of ten plasma cytokines were determined using fluorescent bead-based immunoassay. We evaluated two groups of RRMS with minor (n = 33) and major (n = 25) clinical impairment and compared them with healthy controls (n = 40) in order to detect any correlation between severity of MS clinical symptoms and immune disturbances. Significant differences were noted in CD4(+)CD45RA(+)CCR7(+) naive T-cells, CD4(+)CD45RO(+)CCR7(-) and CD8(+)CD45RO(+)CCR7(-) Tem cells, while no differences were recognized in Tcm, Item, Treg and Is cells in RRMS patients. Nine out of ten studied cytokines were disturbed in plasma samples of patients with RRMS. In conclusion, we demonstrate complex immune dysbalances in untreated MS patients. (c) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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