4.7 Article

Neutrophil extracellular trap release is associated with antinuclear antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus and anti-phospholipid syndrome

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 57, 期 7, 页码 1228-1234

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/key067

关键词

anti-phospholipid syndrome; autoantibodies; interferon signature; neutrophil extracellular traps; systemic lupus erythematosus

资金

  1. Dutch Arthritis Foundation [12-2-406]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Increased release of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) is implicated in the activation of plasmacytoid dendritic cells, vascular disease and thrombosis in SLE and APS. However, studies comparing NET release between patients with SLE and APS are lacking. Here we evaluated plasma-induced NET release in a large cohort of patients with SLE, SLE + APS and primary APS in relation to clinical and serological parameters. Methods. Neutrophils from healthy controls were exposed to plasma of heterologous healthy controls (n = 27) or SLE (n = 55), SLE + APS (n = 38) or primary APS (PAPS) (n = 28) patients and NET release was quantified by immunofluorescence. In a subset of SLE patients, NET release was assessed in longitudinal samples before and after a change in treatment. Results. Plasma-induced NET release was increased in SLE and APS patients, with the highest NET release found in patients with SLE (+/- APS). Plasma of 60% of SLE, 61% of SLE + APS and 45% of PAPS patients induced NET release. NET release did not correlate with disease activity in SLE or APS. However, increased levels of anti-nuclear and anti-dsDNA autoantibodies were associated with increased NET release in SLE and APS. Only in SLE patients, elevated NET release and an increased number of low-density granulocytes were associated with a high IFN signature. Conclusion. Increased NET release is associated with autoimmunity and inflammation in SLE and APS. Inhibition of NET release thus could be of potential benefit in a subset of patients with SLE and APS.

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

4.7
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