4.8 Article

Regulatory T cell proliferative potential is impaired in human autoimmune disease

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 69-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nm.3411

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (FISM) [2012/R/11]
  2. European Union IDEAS Programme European Research Council Starting Grant [310496]
  3. Ministero della Salute [GR-2010-2315414]
  4. Fondo per gli Investimenti della Ricerca di Base (FIRB) [RBFR12I3UB_004]
  5. US National Institutes of Health [AI95921]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human CD4(+)CD25(high)CD127(-)FoxP3(+) regulatory T (Treg) cells suppress immune responses in vitro and in vivo(1). Reduced suppressive function and/or number of peripheral T-reg cells has been previously reported in autoimmune disorders(2,3). T-reg cells represent the most actively replicating compartment within the CD4(+) cells in vivo, but they are hyporesponsive to classical T cell receptor (TCR) stimulation in vitro, a condition that is secondary to their overactive metabolic state(4,5). Here we report that proliferation of T-reg cells after TCR stimulation is impaired in subjects with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) because of altered interleukin-2 (IL-2) secretion and IL-2 receptor (IL-2R)-signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 (STAT5) signaling. This is associated with decreased expression of the forkhead box P3 (FoxP3) 44- and 47-kDa splicing forms, overactivation of S6 ribosomal protein (a downstream target of the mammalian target of rapamycin, mTOR) and altered activity of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27 (p27(kip1)) and extracellular signal-related kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). The impaired capacity of T-reg cells to proliferate in RRMS correlates with the clinical state of the subject, where increasing disease severity is associated with a decline in T-reg cell expansion. These results suggest a previously unrecognized mechanism that may account for the progressive loss of T-reg cells in autoimmune disease.

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