4.5 Review

Osteoimmunology: The correlation between osteoclasts and the Th17/Treg balance in osteoporosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 13, 页码 3591-3597

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.17399

关键词

osteoimmunology; Th17; Treg; RANKL; osteoclasts; osteoporosis

资金

  1. Innovation Fund of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine [sy2018012]
  2. Scientific Research Project of Traditional Chinese Medicine Bureau of Guangdong Province [20201170]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteoporosis, a bone disease with a high disability rate, has been a hot topic in bone biology research. Previous understanding of osteoporosis was limited, but recent studies have shown the correlation between the skeletal and immune systems. Investigating the roles of RANKL and the Th17/Treg balance can provide new insights for the treatment of osteoporosis.
Osteoporosis is a bone disease that is caused by disorder of the skeletal microenvironment, and it characterized by a high disability rate and the occurrence of low energy fractures. Studies on osteoporosis and related treatment options have always been hot spots in the field of bone biology. In the past, the understanding of osteoporosis has been rather limited; research has only shown that osteoporosis involves the imbalance of bone resorption and bone formation, and recent studies have not provided cutting-edge theories of the basic understanding of osteoporosis. Recent studies have shown crosstalk between bone and immune responses. RANKL, an essential factor for osteoclasts (OCs), is associated with the immune system. T helper (Th17)/regulatory T (Treg) cells are two different kinds of T cells that can self-interact and regulate the differentiation and formation of OCs. Therefore, understanding the correlation between the skeletal and immune systems and further revealing the roles and the cooperation between RANKL and the Th17/Treg balance will help to provide new insights for the treatment of osteoporosis.

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