4.5 Article

Mesenchymal stem cells moderate experimental autoimmune uveitis by dynamic regulating Th17 and Breg cells response

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/term.3259

关键词

autoimmune uveitis; Breg cells; mesenchymal stem cells; Th17 cells

资金

  1. Health Care Collaborative Innovation Major Project [201803040011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been shown that MSCs treatment can significantly reduce the production of Th1 and Th17 cytokines during EAU, while increasing the production of Bregs cytokines, resulting in the inhibition of inflammation.
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are adult stem cells from mesoderm with multi potential differentiation, and are being widely studied as a promising treatment for autoimmune diseases. The main inflammatory factors of experimental autoimmune uveitis (EAU) are T helper type 1 (Th1) and Th17. Regulatory B cells (Bregs) are a newly designated B cell subgroup, which has been proved to play a key role in regulating inflammation, autoimmunity and cancer. In this regard, we establish the EAU model by injecting interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein combined with complete Freund's adjuvant into the tail vein and bilateral thighs of rats, and inject MSCs or equal volume of phosphate buffer saline intraperitoneally on the day of immunization. Dynamic changes of cell subsets and cytokine expression are tested at different time periods to explore the relationship between MSCs treatment and disease prognosis during EAU course. Our results suggest that compared with the model control group, MSCs treatment can significantly reduce the production of Th1 and Th17 cytokines during EAU, while the production of regulatory B cells (Bregs) cytokines is significantly increased. At the same time, MSCs can reduce the proportion of Th17 in lymphocytes while the proportion of Bregs is elevated, thus inhibiting the differentiation and activity of interleukin in EAU rats. All this results provide more powerful evidence for cell therapy of autoimmune uveitis.

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