4.7 Article

Regulatory T Cells Improved the Anti-cirrhosis Activity of Human Amniotic Mesenchymal Stem Cell in the Liver by Regulating the TGF-β-Indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase Signaling

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.737825

关键词

liver cirrhosis; hAMSC; Treg; IDO; TGF-beta

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82070676, 81771716]
  2. Medical Talent of Empowering Medicine through Science and Education Program of Jiangsu Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The co-infusion of hAMSC and Treg was found to prevent liver fibrosis, with Treg improving the function of hAMSC by regulating the TGF-β-IDO signaling. This provides a promising approach for treating liver cirrhosis.
Liver fibrosis is a progression stage of chronic liver disease, while current therapies cannot cure or attune cirrhosis effectively. Human amniotic mesenchymal stromal cell (hAMSC) presented immunoregulatory and tissue repairability of multiple illnesses. Regulatory T cells (Treg) had been proved to be functional in reducing immune cell activity. We showed that co-infusion of hAMSC and Treg prevented mild liver fibrosis comparing with hAMSC or Treg alone group. In vitro study indicated that the addition of Treg or the supernatant of Treg improved the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) secreting and cell differentiation ability of hAMSC. Reduction of TGF-beta significantly decreased the HGF secreting and differentiation of hAMSC. Multiple signal neutralizers were added to the culture to understand further the mechanism, which showed that 1-MT, the suppressor of Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), was involved in the effect of TGF-beta in regulating hAMSC. Depletion of TGF-beta or IDO signaling successfully abolished the effect of Treg in improving hAMSC's function both in vitro and vivo. Finally, our result indicated that Treg improved the function of hAMSC by regulating the TGF-beta-IDO signaling and co-infusion of hAMSC and Treg provided a promising approach for treating liver cirrhosis.

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