4.6 Article

Dendritic Cells in Chronic Mycobacterial Granulomas Restrict Local Anti-Bacterial T Cell Response in a Murine Model

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011453

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-A1048087, R21-A1072638]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mycobacterium-induced granulomas are the interface between bacteria and host immune response. During acute infection dendritic cells (DCs) are critical for mycobacterial dissemination and activation of protective T cells. However, their role during chronic infection in the granuloma is poorly understood. Methodology/Principal Findings: We report that an inflammatory subset of murine DCs are present in granulomas induced by Mycobacteria bovis strain Bacillus Calmette-guerin (BCG), and both their location in granulomas and costimulatory molecule expression changes throughout infection. By flow cytometric analysis, we found that CD11c(+) cells in chronic granulomas had lower expression of MHCII and co-stimulatory molecules CD40, CD80 and CD86, and higher expression of inhibitory molecules PD-L1 and PD-L2 compared to CD11c(+) cells from acute granulomas. As a consequence of their phenotype, CD11c(+) cells from chronic lesions were unable to support the reactivation of newly-recruited, antigen 85B-specific CD4(+)IFN gamma T+ cells or induce an IFN gamma response from naive T cells in vivo and ex vivo. The mechanism of this inhibition involves the PD-1:PD-L signaling pathway, as ex vivo blockade of PD-L1 and PD-L2 restored the ability of isolated CD11c(+) cells from chronic lesions to stimulate a protective IFN gamma T cell response. Conclusions/Significance: Our data suggest that DCs in chronic lesions may facilitate latent infection by down-regulating protective T cell responses, ultimately acting as a shield that promotes mycobacterium survival. This DC shield may explain why mycobacteria are adapted for long-term survival in granulomatous lesions.

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

4.6
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