4.7 Article

A Role for Dendritic Cells in Bleomycin-induced Pulmonary Fibrosis in Mice?

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200907-1164OC

关键词

dendritic cells; bleomycin; lung fibrosis

资金

  1. Chancellerie des Universites de Pans (Legs Poix)
  2. Comae d'organization de l'Assistance Respiratoire a Domicile d'lle de France
  3. Societe de Pneumologie de Langue Francaise
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  5. Genkyotex
  6. AstraZeneca
  7. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale Lung dendritic cells (DCs) have been shown to accumulate in human fibrotic lung disease, but little is known concerning a role for DCs in the pathogenesis of fibrotic lung. Objectives: To characterize lung DCs in an in vivo model of bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis in mice. Methods: We characterized the kinetics and activation of pulmonary DCs during the course of bleomycin-induced lung injury by flow cytometry on lung single-cell suspensions. We also characterized the lymphocytes accumulating in bleomycin lung and the chemokines susceptible to favor the recruitment of immune cells. Measurements and Main Results: We show, for the first time, that increased numbers of CD11c(+)/major histocompatibility complex class II+ DCs, including CD11b(hl) monocyte-derived inflammatory DCs, infiltrate the lung of treated animals during the fibrotic phase of the response to bleomycin These DCs are mature DCs expressing CD40, CD86, and CD83. They are associated with increased numbers of recently activated memory T cells expressing CD44, CD40L, and CD28, suggesting that fully mature DCs and Ag-experienced T cells can drive an efficient effector immune response within bleomycin lung Most importantly, when DCs are inactivated with VAG539, a recently described new immunomodulator, VAG539 treatment attenuates the hallmarks of bleomycin lung injury. Conclusions: These findings identify lung DCs as key proinflammatory cells potentially able to sustain pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis in the bleomycin model

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