4.5 Article

Aging does not affect the ability of human monocyte-derived dendritic cells to phagocytose Candida albicans

期刊

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 785-789

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-015-0344-1

关键词

Dendritic cell; Immunosenescence; C. albicans; Phagocytosis and Toll like-receptors

资金

  1. FAPESP (Sao Paulo Research Foundation) [09/17889-5, 10/15271-1]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [10/15271-1] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Dendritic cells (DCs) are the most potent antigen-presenting cells, playing a key role in induction of both innate and adaptive immunity. Immunosenescence refers to age-associated changes in the immune system, which may be associated with susceptibility to infections and their clinical complications. The precise effects of aging on DCs in immunity to infections are not well understood. Among the common pathogenic microorganisms, the fungus Candida albicans is an important pathogen for the development of invasive infections, especially in immunocompromised individuals, as well as during aging. Aims To make a comparative in vitro evaluation of the immunomodulatory function of DCs challenged with C. albicans, by phagocytosis of the fungal cells, and determine the involvement of TLR2 and TLR4 receptors. For this purpose, DCs were generated with the use of peripheral blood monocytes from healthy young and aged subjects. Results The phagocytosis of C. albicans is developed by DCs in TLR2- and TLR4-dependent way. This mechanism is not affected by aging. Conclusion Given the important role of the DCs in responses against the fungus, it is evident that if changes in phagocytosis occurred with aging, impairment in the elderly could develop. However, the evidence that phagocytosis of this fungus by DCs is not impaired with aging, brings us to the question of which are the mechanisms truly associated with the prevalence of certain diseases in the elderly.

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