4.6 Article

Formation and Disordered Degradation of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps in Necrotizing Lesions of Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 189, 期 4, 页码 839-846

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2019.01.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Research Committee of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare for Intractable Vasculitis grant
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [15ek0109121]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is characterized by the production of ANCAs and systemic necrotizing vasculitis in small vessels. Disordered regulation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) is critically involved in the pathogenesis of AAV. NETs are web-like DNA decorated with antimicrobial proteins; they are extruded from activated neutrophils. The principal degradation factor of NETs in vivo is DNase I; however, NETs resistant to DNase I can persist in tissues and can Lead to the production of ANCAs. Deposition of NETs has been demonstrated in glomerular crescents and necrotizing vasculitis in AAV. Here, the amount of NETs in formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue sections was examined, and the results for AAV were compared with the results for diseases that should be distinguished from AAV. NETs were more abundant in necrotizing vasculitis of AAV than in non ANCA-associated vasculitis, or in granulomatous angiitis. Pulmonary granulomas in AAV and non ANCA-associated diseases were further studied. The amount of NETs was significantly greater in necrotizing granulomas of AAV than in granulomas of sarcoidosis without necrosis. Although NETs were formed in necrotizing granulomas of tuberculosis equivalently to those formed in AAV, they were more susceptible to degradation by DNase I than were NETs in AAV. The formation and disordered degradation of NETs in necrotizing lesions are characteristics of AAV and are possibly related to its pathogenesis.

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