4.8 Article

Differential regulation of central nervous system autoimmunity by T(H)1 and T(H)17 cells

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 337-342

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nm1715

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [T32-CA009537, T32 CA009537] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI072737-11, AI072737, R01 AI072737] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [T32CA009537] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI072737] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS) characterized by a wide range of clinical signs(1). The location of lesions in the CNS is variable and is a crucial determinant of clinical outcome. Multiple sclerosis is believed to be mediated by myelin-specific T cells, but the mechanisms that determine where T cells initiate inflammation are unknown. Differences in lesion distribution have been linked to the HLA complex, suggesting that T cell specificity influences sites of inflammation(2). We demonstrate that T cells that are specific for different myelin epitopes generate populations characterized by different T helper type 17 (T(H)17) to T helper type 1 (T(H)1) ratios depending on the functional avidity of interactions between TCR and peptide-MHC complexes. Notably, the T(H)17: T(H)1 ratio of infiltrating T cells determines where inflammation occurs in the CNS. Myelin-specific T cells infiltrate the meninges throughout the CNS, regardless of the T(H)17: T(H)1 ratio. However, T cell infiltration and inflammation in the brain parenchyma occurs only when T(H)17 cells outnumber T(H)1 cells and trigger a disproportionate increase in interleukin-17 expression in the brain. In contrast, T cells showing a wide range of T(H)17: T(H)1 ratios induce spinal cord parenchymal inflammation. These findings reveal critical differences in the regulation of inflammation in the brain and spinal cord.

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

4.8
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