4.6 Article

Neutrophil Extracellular Traps Promote the Development and Growth of Human Salivary Stones

期刊

CELLS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells9092139

关键词

sialolithiasis; salivary stones; lithogenesis; stone development; stone growth; sialadenitis; salivary glands; neutrophils; neutrophil extracellular traps

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
  2. Friedrich-Alexander Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg (FAU)
  3. Margarete Ammon Foundation Munich
  4. Manfred Roth-Foundation Furth
  5. Optical Imaging Center Erlangen (OICE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Salivary gland stones, or sialoliths, are the most common cause of the obstruction of salivary glands. The mechanism behind the formation of sialoliths has been elusive. Symptomatic sialolithiasis has a prevalence of 0.45% in the general population, is characterized by recurrent painful periprandial swelling of the affected gland, and often results in sialadenitis with the need for surgical intervention. Here, we show by the use of immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, computed tomography (CT) scans and reconstructions, special dye techniques, bacterial genotyping, and enzyme activity analyses that neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) initiate the formation and growth of sialoliths in humans. The deposition of neutrophil granulocyte extracellular DNA around small crystals results in the dense aggregation of the latter, and the subsequent mineralization creates alternating layers of dense mineral, which are predominantly calcium salt deposits and DNA. The further agglomeration and appositional growth of these structures promotes the development of macroscopic sialoliths that finally occlude the efferent ducts of the salivary glands, causing clinical symptoms and salivary gland dysfunction. These findings provide an entirely novel insight into the mechanism of sialolithogenesis, in which an immune system-mediated response essentially participates in the physicochemical process of concrement formation and growth.

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