4.8 Article

Different populations of CD11b+ dendritic cells drive Th2 responses in the small intestine and colon

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15820

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Schistosomiasis Resource Center at the Biomedical Research Institute (Rockville, MD) [HHSN272201000005I]
  2. Wellcome Trust [099784/Z/12/Z]
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/K021095/1]
  4. Sapere Aude III senior research grant from the Danish research council
  5. Lundbeckfonden [R155-2014-4184]
  6. Swedish research council
  7. Crafoord Foundation
  8. Carl Trygger Foundation
  9. Per Eric & Ulla Schyberg Foundation
  10. Medical Research Council [MR/N023625/1, MR/K021095/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. MRC [MR/K021095/1, MR/N023625/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. Wellcome Trust [099784/Z/12/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

T-helper 2 (Th2) cell responses defend against parasites. Although dendritic cells (DCs) are vital for the induction of T-cell responses, the DC subpopulations that induce Th2 cells in the intestine are unidentified. Here we show that intestinal Th2 responses against Trichuris muris worms and Schistosoma mansoni eggs do not develop in mice with IRF-4-deficient DCs (IRF-4(f/f) CD11c-cre). Adoptive transfer of conventional DCs, in particular CD11b-expressing DCs from the intestine, is sufficient to prime S. mansoni-specific Th2 responses. Surprisingly, transferred IRF-4-deficient DCs also effectively prime S. mansoni-specific Th2 responses. Egg antigens do not induce the expression of IRF-4-related genes. Instead, IRF-4(f/f) CD11c-cre mice have fewer CD11b(+) migrating DCs and fewer DCs carrying parasite antigens to the lymph nodes. Furthermore, CD11b(+) CD103(+) DCs induce Th2 responses in the small intestine, whereas CD11b(+) CD103(-) DCs perform this role in the colon, revealing a specific functional heterogeneity among intestinal DCs in inducing Th2 responses.

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

4.8
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