4.5 Review

The role of CD8+T lymphocytes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

期刊

INFLAMMATION RESEARCH
卷 70, 期 1, 页码 11-18

出版社

SPRINGER BASEL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00011-020-01408-z

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CD8+T lymphocyte; Smoking; Cytotoxic T cell; Lung disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies have found an increase in CD8 + T-cells in the lungs of COPD patients, with enhanced activation but unclear cell phenotype. COPD patients show a higher proportion of type 1 CD8 + (Tc1) cells, but type 2 (Tc2) cells are also increased, with greater expression of cytotoxic proteins. Further research is needed to draw firm conclusions on the role of CD8 + T-cells in COPD.
Objective and design This systematic review aims to establish the role of CD8 + T lymphocytes in COPD. Methods Forty-eight papers published in the last 15 years were identified for inclusion. Results CD8 + T-cells are increased in the lungs of patients with COPD (17 studies, 16 positive) whereas in the circulation, findings were inconclusive. Activation of CD8 + T-cells was enhanced in lungs (four studies, three positive) but cell phenotype was unclear. There was substantial evidence of a higher proportion of type 1 CD8 + (Tc1) cells in COPD (11 studies, 9 positive), though the population of type 2 (Tc2) cells was also increased (5 studies, 4 positive). CD8 + T-cells in COPD exhibited greater expression of cytotoxic proteins (five studies, five positive). Studies assessed a variety of questions so evidence was insufficient to draw firm conclusions. The role of CD8 + T-cells at acute exacerbation of COPD and also their contribution to alveolar destruction can only be hypothesised at this stage. Conclusions Not only is the number of CD8 + T-cells increased in COPD, these cells have increased capacity to exert effector functions and are likely to contribute to disease pathogenesis. Several mechanisms highlighted show promise for future investigation to consolidate current knowledge.

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

4.5
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