4.2 Article

The number and function of T regulatory cells in obese atopic female asthmatics

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 303-310

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2018.1452935

关键词

Atopy; early onset asthma; obesity; phenotype; T cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mechanisms underlying the association between asthma and obesity remain poorly understood. Obesity appears to be a risk factor for asthma, and obese asthmatics fare poorly compared to lean asthmatics. Objectives: To explore the possibility that reduced regulatory T cell (Treg) number and function contribute to the obesity-asthma association. We concentrated on obese females with childhood-onset asthma, since Treg may be involved in this phenotype. Methods: We recruited 64 women (ages 18-50) into four groups: lean (BMI 18-25 kg/m(2)) controls (n = 17) and asthmatics (n = 13), and obese (BMI >= 35 kg/m(2)) controls (n = 17) and asthmatics (n = 17). Asthmatics had atopy and childhood-diagnosed asthma. We assessed lung function, asthma control and quality of life. Peripheral blood CD4+/CD25+/FoxP3+ Treg cells were identified and counted by flow cytometry and expressed as % total CD4+ T cells. We assessed Treg cell function by the ability of CD4+/CD25+ Treg cells to suppress autologous CD4+/CD25- responder T cell (Tresp) proliferation and measured as % suppression of Tresp cell proliferation. Results: Obese asthmatics had worse lung function, asthma control, and quality of life compared to lean asthmatics. Compared to lean or obese control groups, the number of Treg cells in the obese asthmatics was approximately 1.58- or 1.73-fold higher. The ability of Treg cells from obese-asthmatics to suppress Tresp cell proliferation was reduced. Conclusions: Obese, atopic women with childhood diagnosed asthma demonstrate increased Treg cell number and mildly decreased Treg cell function. Our data do not support the view that reduced Treg cell number contributes to this obese-asthma phenotype.

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

4.2
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