4.6 Review

Regulatory B cells in experimental stroke

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY
卷 154, 期 2, 页码 169-177

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/imm.12887

关键词

B cells; brain; cell therapy; neuroinflammation; regulation; suppression

资金

  1. American Heart Association [17GRNT33220001]
  2. NIH/NINDS [R01NS076013, R01NS080890, R01NS075887]
  3. Department of Veterans Affairs [1IK6BX004209]
  4. VA Portland Health Care Center in Portland, Oregon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current treatment options for human stroke are limited mainly to the modestly effective infusion of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), with additional improvement of functional independence and higher rates of angiographic revascularization observed after mechanical thrombectomy. However, new therapeutic strategies that address post-stroke immune-mediated inflammatory responses are urgently needed. Recent studies in experimental stroke have firmly implicated immune mechanisms in the propagation and partial resolution of central nervous system damage after the ischaemic event. A new-found anti-inflammatory role for regulatory B (Breg) cells in autoimmune diseases sparked interest in these cells as potential immunomodulators in stroke. Subsequent studies identified interleukin-10 as a common regulatory cytokine among all five of the currently recognized Breg cell subsets, several of which can be found in the affected brain hemisphere after induction of experimental stroke in mice. Transfer of enriched Breg cell subpopulations into both B-cell-depleted and wild-type mice confirmed their potent immunosuppressive activities invivo, including recruitment and potentiation of regulatory T cells. Moreover, Breg cell therapy strongly reduced stroke volumes and treatment outcomes in ischaemic mice even when administered 24hr after induction of experimental stroke, a treatment window far exceeding that of tPA. These striking results suggest that transfer of enriched Breg cell populations could have therapeutic value in human stroke, although considerable clinical challenges remain.

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

4.6
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