4.6 Article

Impact of CD40 ligand, B cells, and mast cells in peanut-induced anaphylactic responses

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 179, 期 10, 页码 6696-6703

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.10.6696

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effector immune mechanisms underlying peanut-induced anaphylaxis remain to be fully elucidated. We investigated the relative contribution of Igs, mast cells (MCs), and Fc epsilon RI in the elicitation of anaphylaxis in a murine model. Assessment of peanut hypersensitivity reactions was performed clinically and biologically. Our data show that wild-type (WT; C57BL/6 strain) mice consistently developed severe anaphylaxis (median clinical score: 3.515), an similar to 8 degrees C drop in core body temperature, and significantly increased plasma levels of histamine and leukotrienes. CD40 ligand- and B cell-deficient mice presented evidence of allergic sensitization as demonstrated by production of Th2-associated cytokines by splenocytes and a late-phase inflammatory response that were both indistinguishable to those detected in WT mice. However, CD40 ligand- and B cell-deficient mice did not exhibit any evidence of anaphylaxis. Our data also show that MC-deficient (Kit(W)/Kit(W-v)) mice did not suffer, unlike their littermate controls, anaphylactic reactions despite the fact that serum levels of peanut-specific Igs were similarly elevated. Finally, Fc epsilon RI-deficient mice experienced anaphylactic responses although to a significantly lesser degree than those observed in WT mice. Thus, these data demonstrate that the presence of peanut-specific Abs along with functional MCs comprise a necessary and sufficient condition for the elicitation of peanut-induced anaphylaxis. That the absence of Fc epsilon RI prevented the development of anaphylaxis only partially insinuates the contribution of an IgE-independent pathway, and suggests that strategies to impair MC degranulation may be necessary to improve the efficacy of anti-IgE therapy.

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