4.7 Article

IL-33, IL-25 and TSLP contribute to development of fungal-associated protease-induced innate-type airway inflammation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-36440-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grant for Joint Research Project of the Institute of Medical Science, the University of Tokyo
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
  3. Precursory Research for Embryonic Science and Technology, Japan Science and Technology Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Certain proteases derived from house dust mites and plants are considered to trigger initiation of allergic airway inflammation by disrupting tight junctions between epithelial cells. It is known that inhalation of proteases such as house dust mite-derived Der p1 and/or papaya-derived papain caused airway eosinophilia in naive mice and even in Rag-deficient mice that lack acquired immune cells such as T, B and NKT cells. In contrast, little is known regarding the possible involvement of proteases derived from Aspergillus species (fungal-associated proteases; FAP), which are ubiquitous saprophytic fungi in the environment, in the development of allergic airway eosinophilia. Here, we found that inhalation of FAP by naive mice led to airway eosinophilia that was dependent on protease-activated receptor-2 (PAR2), but not TLR2 and TLR4. Those findings suggest that the protease activity of FAP, but not endotoxins in FAP, are important in the setting. In addition, development of that eosinophilia was mediated by innate immune cells (ILCs) such as innate lymphoid cells, but not by acquired immune cells such as T, B and NKT cells. Whereas IL-33, IL-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) are involved in induction of FAP-induced ILC-mediated airway eosinophilia, IL-33-rather than IL-25 and/or TSLP-was critical for the eosinophilia in our model. Our findings improve our understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in induction of airway inflammation by FAP.

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

4.7
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