4.7 Article

Abnormalities of follicular helper T-cell number and function in Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome

期刊

BLOOD
卷 127, 期 25, 页码 3180-3191

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-06-652636

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Welfare Scientific Research Project of China [201402012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein (WASp) is a hematopoietic-specific regulator of actin nucleation. Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (WAS) patients show immunodeficiencies, most of which have been attributed to defective T-cell functions. T follicular helper (Tfh) cells are the major CD4(+) T-cell subset with specialized B-cell helper capabilities. Aberrant Tfh cells activities are involved in immunopathologies such as autoimmunity, immunodeficiencies, and lymphomas. We found that in WAS patients, the number of circulating Tfh cells was significantly reduced due to reduced proliferation and increased apoptosis, and Tfh cells were Th2 and Th17 polarized. The expression of inducible costimulator (ICOS) in circulating Tfh cells was higher in WAS patients than in controls. BCL6 expression was decreased in total CD4(+) and Tfh cells of WAS patients. Mirroring the results in patients, the frequency of Tfh cells in WAS knockout (KO) mice was decreased, as was the frequency of BCL6(+) Tfh cells, but the frequency of ICOS+ Tfh cells was increased. Using WAS chimera mice, we found that the number of ICOS+ Tfh cells was decreased in WAS chimera mice, indicating that the increase in ICOS+ Tfh cells in WAS KO mice was cell extrinsic. The data from in vivo CD4(+) naive T-cell adoptive transfer mice as well as in vitro coculture of naive B and Tfh cells showed that the defective function of WASp-deficient Tfh cells was T-cell intrinsic. Consistent findings in both WAS patients and WAS KO mice suggested an essential role for WASp in the development and memory response of Tfh cells and that WASp deficiency causes a deficient differentiation defect in Tfh cells by downregulating the transcription level of BCL6.

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