4.6 Article

Changes of Cytokines during a Spaceflight Analog - a 45-Day Head-Down Bed Rest

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077401

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Basic Research Program of China [2011CB711000, 2010CB945300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31070787, 31270935, 31171144, 30871222]
  3. opening foundation of the State Key Laboratory of Space Medicine Fundamentals and Application, China Astronaut Research and Training Center [SMFA12K08]
  4. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-10-0175/BMU20100005]
  5. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20100001110049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spaceflight is associated with deregulation in the immune system. Head-down bed rest (HDBR) at -6 degrees is believed to be the most practical model for examining multi-system responses to microgravity in humans during spaceflight. In the present study, a 45-day HDBR was performed to investigate the alterations in human immune cell distributions and their functions in response to various stimuli. The effect of countermeasure, Rhodiola rosea (RR) treatment, was also examined. A significant decrease of interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) and interleukin-17 (IL-17) productions by activated T cells, increase of IL-1 beta and IL-18 by activated B and myeloid cells were observed during HDBR. The upregulation of serum cortisol was correlated with the changes of IL-1 family cytokines. In addition, a significant increase of memory T and B cell and regulatory T cells (Treg) were also detected. The uptake of RR further decreased IFN-gamma level and slowed down the upregulation of IL-1 family cytokines. These data suggest that for prolonged HDBR and spaceflight, the decreased protective T cell immunity and enhanced proinflammatory cytokines should be closely monitored. The treatment with RR may play an important role in suppressing proinflammatory cytokines but not in boosting protective T cell immunity.

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