4.4 Article

Chronic nicotine stimulation modulates the immune response of mucosal T cells to Th1-dominant pattern via nAChR by upregulation of Th1-specific transcriptional factor

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 432, 期 3, 页码 217-221

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.12.027

关键词

nAChR; T cells; inflammatory bowel disease; ulcerative colitis; T-bet; GATA-3

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) consists of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). The etiology has not been clarified yet, but immune disorder is thought to be involved in the pathogenic physiology. Recently, general consensus has been reached that CD and UC are distinct, especially in respect of the immune response. Interestingly, smoking has diverse effects on CD, Th1-type enteritis, and on UC, Th2-type. However, the mechanisms remain obscure. Therefore, we hypothesized that nicotine altered the distinct immune responses in each form of IBD to affect their pathophysiology. In this study, we first demonstrated by RT-PCR analysis that human lamina propria T (LPT) cells had nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR), and express alpha 7 nAChR subunit universally. In addition, the expression of T-bet mRNA in human LPT cells was significantly upregulated after the culture with 10(-7) M and 10(-5) M nicotine for 9 days, while chronic nicotine stimulation showed negligible effect on the expression of GATA-3 mRNA by real-time PCR. The effect of nicotine was inhibited by mecamylamine (MEC). These results suggested that nicotine could modulate the immune balance to Th1-dominant via nAChR in the intestine, to improve Th2-type enteritis. This may provide the experimental evidence for the fact that nicotine has a beneficial influence on UC, and exacerbates CD. Furthermore, it is of great interest that nicotine acts oppositely on CD and UC by modulation of the mucosal immune balance via the neurotransmitter receptor. (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