4.6 Article

Smoking Impairs the Immunomodulatory Capacity of Lung-Resident Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1165/rcmb.2018-0351OC

关键词

chronic bronchitis; emphysema; pulmonary progenitor cells; lung spheroids; immunomodulation

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI15/00799, CP16/00039]
  2. Recercaixa-2012 [AA084096]
  3. La Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica [PI068/2015, PI192/2012]
  4. AstraZeneca Foundation COPD Young Researchers Award
  5. Menarini
  6. Centres de Recerca de Catalunya Program/Generalitat de Catalunya (FI-DGR 2016)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tobacco smoking is the main environmental risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but not all smokers develop the disease. A population of lung-resident mesenchymal stem cells (LR-MSCs) exist in healthy lungs, but how tobacco smoking affects them and their role in COPD have not been assessed yet. Using a sphere-based culture technique, we isolated LR-MSCs from lung tissue obtained from nonsmokers and current and former smokers with and without COPD (n = 53). The cells were characterized by flow cytometry and Affymetrix arrays. Their immunomodulatory capacity was assessed in vitro using cocultures with T cells and after preincubation with 2.5% and 5% cigarette smoke extract. We were able to isolate LR-MSCs expressing similar phenotypic markers in all of the study groups. LR-MSCs from current smokers with COPD expressed different levels of CX3CL1 and CCL5 cytokines, and were unable to modulate CD8(+) T-cell proliferation. Preincubation of LR-MSCs with cigarette smoke extract reduced their immunomodulatory capacity. In conclusion, 1) LR-MSCs can be isolated in similar amounts from never-smokers and smokers with and without COPD; 2) their immunomodulatory capacity is impaired in current smokers with COPD, but not in those with normal lung function; and 3) this is reversible after smoking cessation and is reproducible in vitro.

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