4.5 Article

Clinical Immunosuppressants Inhibit Inflammatory, Proliferative, and Reprogramming Potential, But Not Angiogenesis of Human Pancreatic Duct Cells

期刊

CELL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 1585-1598

出版社

COGNIZANT COMMUNICATION CORP
DOI: 10.3727/096368914X682819

关键词

Human pancreatic duct cell; Islet transplantation; Immunosuppressant; Cytoldnes; Angiogenesis; Dedifferentiation

资金

  1. KU LEUVEN [GOA 2009/10]
  2. Belgian government (Interuniversity Attraction Poles, program P6/40 of the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office)
  3. European Community [241883, 241447]
  4. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation [4-2005-1327]
  5. IRO fellowship of the KU LEUVEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of pancreatic duct cells in clinical islet grafts may affect long-term metabolic success. Human pancreatic duct cells express factors that may exert both protective and damaging effects on islet cells in the graft. Here we studied the potential of commonly used immunosuppressive drugs in islet transplantation sirolimus, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to influence the inflammatory and angiogenic capacity of human pancreatic duct cells in addition to their proliferation and reprogramming abilities. Our data show that the expression of specific proinflammatory cytoldnes by the human pancreatic duct cells was either unaltered or inhibited by the immunosuppressants studied, especially tacrolimus and MMF, whereas expression of chemotactic and angiogenic factors was unaffected. Although none of the immunosuppressants directly led to duct cell death, MMF prevented duct cell proliferation, and sirolimus inhibited neurogenin 3-mediated duct-to-(neuro)endocrine cell reprogramming. Our data indicate that the immunosuppressant tacrolimus was the least aggressive on the angiogenic, proliferative, and reprogramming potential of human pancreatic duct cells, while it was most powerful in inhibiting inflammatory cytokines, which may influence the outcome of islet transplantation.

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