4.6 Article

GARP inhibits allergic airway inflammation in a humanized mouse model

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 71, 期 9, 页码 1274-1283

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/all.12883

关键词

asthma; humanized animal model; pulmonary inflammation; regulatory T cells; tolerance

资金

  1. Wilhelm Sander Stiftung
  2. [SFB 1066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundRegulatory T cells (Treg) represent a promising target for novel treatment strategies in patients with inflammatory/allergic diseases. A soluble derivate of the Treg surface molecule glycoprotein A repetitions predominant (sGARP) has strong anti-inflammatory and regulatory effects on human cells in vitro as well as in vivo through de novo induction of peripheral Treg. The aim of this study was to investigate the immunomodulatory function of sGARP and its possible role as a new therapeutic option in allergic diseases using a humanized mouse model. MethodsTo analyze the therapeutic effects of sGARP, adult NOD/Scidc(-/-) (NSG) mice received peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) derived from allergic patients with sensitization against birch allergen. Subsequently, allergic inflammation was induced in the presence of Treg alone or in combination with sGARP. ResultsIn comparison with mice that received Treg alone, additional treatment with sGARP reduced airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), influx of neutrophils and macrophages into the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and human CD45(+) cells in the lungs. Furthermore, the numbers of mucus-producing goblet cells and inflammatory cell infiltrates were reduced. To elucidate whether the mechanism of action of sGARP involves the TGF- receptor pathway, mice additionally received anti-TGF- receptor II (TGF-RII) antibodies. Blocking the signaling of TGF- through TGF-RII abrogated the anti-inflammatory effects of sGARP, confirming its essential role in inhibiting the allergic inflammation. ConclusionInduction of peripheral tolerance via sGARP is a promising potential approach to treat allergic airway diseases.

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