4.8 Article

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)α and -γ regulate IFNγ and IL-17A production by human T cells in a sex-specific way

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118458109

关键词

autoimmunity; cytokines; experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis; gender; nuclear receptor

资金

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR)
  2. Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC)
  3. Donald Paty Career Development Awards

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women develop certain autoimmune diseases more often than men. It has been hypothesized that this may relate to the development of more robust T-helper (Th)1 responses in women. To test whether women exhibit a Th1 bias, we isolated nave cluster of differentiation (CD)4(+) T cells from peripheral blood of healthy women and men and measured the proliferation and cytokine production by these cells in response to submaximal amounts of anti-CD3 and anti-CD28. We observed that CD4(+) T cells from women produced higher levels of IFN gamma as well as tended to proliferate more than male CD4(+) T cells. Intriguingly, male CD4(+) T cells instead had a predilection toward IL-17A production. This sex dichotomy in Th cytokine production was found to be even more striking in the Swiss/Jackson Laboratory (SJL) mouse. Studies in mice and humans indicated that the sexual dimorphism in Th1 and Th17 cytokine production was dependent on the androgen status and the T-cell expression of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR)alpha and PPAR gamma. Androgens increased PPAR alpha and decreased PPAR gamma expression by human CD4(+) T cells. PPAR alpha siRNA-mediated knockdown had the effect of increasing IFN gamma by male CD4(+) T cells, while transfection of CD4(+) T cells with PPAR gamma siRNAs increased IL-17A production uniquely by female T cells. Together, our observations indicate that human T cells exhibit a sex difference in the production of IFN gamma and IL-17A that may be driven by expressions of PPAR alpha and PPAR gamma.

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