4.6 Article

Innate-Like and Conventional T Cell Populations from Hemodialyzed and Kidney Transplanted Patients Are Equally Compromised

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105422

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)
  2. Rene Descartes University
  3. INSERM (Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale)
  4. FRM (Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale)
  5. Day Solvay Foundation
  6. FCT (Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinicians are well aware of existing pharmacologically-induced immune deficient status in kidney-transplanted patients that will favor their susceptibility to bacterial or viral infections. Previous studies indicated that advanced Stage 4-5 Chronic Kidney Disease might also be regarded as an immune deficiency-like status as well, even though the mechanisms are not fully understood. Here, we analyzed the ex vivo frequency and the functional properties of both conventional and innate-like T (ILT) lymphocyte subsets in the peripheral blood of 35 patients on hemodialysis, 29 kidney transplanted patients and 38 healthy donors. We found that peripheral blood cell count of ILT cells, as iNKT (invariant Natural Killer T) and MAIT (mucosal-associated invariant T), were significantly decreased in hemodialyzed patients compared to healthy controls. This deficiency was also observed regarding conventional T cells, including the IL-17-producing CD4(+) Th17 cells. Pertaining to regulatory T cells, we also noticed major modifications in the global frequency of CD4(+)CD25(+)Foxp3(+) T lymphocytes, including the resting suppressive CD45RA(+)Foxp3(lo) and activated suppressive CD45RA(-)Foxp3(hi) T cell subpopulations. We found no significant differences between the immune status of hemodialyzed and kidney-transplanted subjects. In conclusion, we demonstrated that both ILT and conventional T cell numbers are equally impaired in hemodialyzed and kidney-transplanted patients.

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