4.6 Article

NK Cells Modulate the Inflammatory Response to Corneal Epithelial Abrasion and Thereby Support Wound Healing

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 181, 期 2, 页码 452-462

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.04.010

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [EY018239, EY007551, EY017120]
  2. US Department of Agriculture [6250-51000-046]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [39970250, 30772387, 81070703]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural killer (NK) cells are lymphocytes of the innate immune system that have crucial cytotoxic and regulatory roles in adaptive immunity and inflammation. Herein, we consider a role for these cells in corneal wound healing. After a 2-mm central epithelial abrasion of the mouse cornea, a subset of classic NK cells migrated into the limbus and corneal stroma, peaking at 24 hours with an eightfold increase over baseline. Depletion of gamma delta T cells significantly reduced NK cell accumulation (>70%; P < 0.01); however, in neutrophil-depleted animals, NK cell influx was normal. Isolated spleen NK cells migrated to the wounded cornea, and this migration was reduced by greater than 60% (P < 0.01) by ex vivo antibody blocking of NK cell CXCR3 or CCR2. Antibody-induced depletion of NK cells significantly altered the inflammatory reaction to corneal wounding, as evidenced by a 114% increase (P < 0.01) in neutrophil influx at a time when acute inflammation is normally waning. Functional blocking of NKG2D, an activating receptor for NK cell cytotoxicity and cytokine secretion, did not inhibit NK cell immigration, but significantly increased neutrophil influx. Consistent with excessive neutrophil accumulation, NK depletion and blocking of NKG2D also inhibited corneal nerve regeneration and epithelial healing (P < 0.01). Findings of this study suggest that NK cells are actively involved in corneal healing by limiting the innate acute inflammatory reaction to corneal wounding. (Am J Pathol 2012, 181:452-462; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.04.010)

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