4.6 Article

Relationship between eosinophilia and levels of chemokines (CCL5 and CCL11) and IL-5 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of patients with mustard gas-induced pulmonary fibrosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 605-612

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10875-007-9114-y

关键词

rantes; IL-5; eotaxin; pulmonary fibrosis; mustard

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Therefore, this study was designed to analyze the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid concentrations of IL-5, RANTES (CCL5) and eotaxin (CCL11) and also to examine the relationship between the percentage and absolute number of the BAL eosinophils and these measured chemokines in patients with sulfur mustard (SM) gas-induced pulmonary fibrosis (PF). Fifteen veterans with mustard gas-induced PF and 14 normal veterans as control group. Pulmonary function tests, tests for D-LCO, computed tomography scans of the chest, analyses of BAL fluids for RANTES (CCL5), eotaxin (CCL11), and IL-5 were performed in all cases. Eosinophilic alveolitis was the predominant feature (p < 0.0001). There were significant differences in CCL5, CCL11, and IL-5 levels of BAL fluid between patients with PF and controls (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p = 0.001, respectively). The concentrations of CCL5 and CCL11 showed positive correlations with percentage (r = 0.57 and p = 0.03; r = 0.52 and p = 0.04, respectively) and absolute counts (r = 0.54 and p = 0.04, r = 0.53 and p = 0.04, respectively) of BAL eosinophils. There were significant positive correlations between the concentrations of IL-5 and the proportion and total cell number of eosinophils in BAL (r = 0.67 and p = 0.01; r = 0.59 and p = 0.02, respectively) too. A significant correlation between BAL CCL5, CCL11, and IL-5 levels and eosinophils in patients with pulmonary fibrosis due to SM gas inhalation has been demonstrated, suggesting that these C-C chemokines and IL-5 contribute to the recruitment of eosinophils cells in the lung in these victims.

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