4.7 Article

Ischemia augments alloimmune injury through IL-6-driven CD4+ alloreactivity

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-20858-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [RO1AI1296596, R56AI123270]
  2. American Heart Association [14FTF19620001]
  3. Brigham Research Institute
  4. BWH Health & Technology Innovation Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ischemia reperfusion injuries (IRI) are unavoidable in solid organ transplantation. IRI augments alloimmunity but the mechanisms involved are poorly understood. Herein, we examined the effect of IRI on antigen specific alloimmunity. We demonstrate that ischemia promotes alloimmune activation, leading to more severe histological features of rejection, and increased CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell graft infiltration, with a predominantly CD8(+) IFN gamma(+) infiltrate. This process is dependent on the presence of alloreactive CD4(+) T cells, where depletion prevented infiltration of ischemic grafts by CD8(+) IFN gamma(+) T cells. IL-6 is a known driver of ischemia-induced rejection. Herein, depletion of donor antigen-presenting cells reduced ischemia-induced CD8(+) IFN gamma(+) allograft infiltration, and improved allograft outcomes. Following prolonged ischemia, accelerated rejection was observed despite treatment with CTLA4Ig, indicating that T cell costimulatory blockade failed to overcome the immune activating effect of IRI. However, despite severe ischemic injury, treatment with anti-IL-6 and CTLA4Ig blocked IRI-induced alloimmune injury and markedly improved allograft survival. We describe a novel pathway where IRI activates innate immunity, leading to upregulation of antigen specific alloimmunity, resulting in chronic allograft injury. Based on these findings, we describe a clinically relevant treatment strategy to overcome the deleterious effect of IRI, and provide superior long-term allograft outcomes.

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