4.6 Article

A new population of cells lacking expression of CD27 represents a notable component of the B cell memory compartment in systemic lupus erythematosus

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 178, 期 10, 页码 6624-6633

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.10.6624

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI049660-01A1, U19 AI56390] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [K08AR048303] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human memory B cells comprise isotype-switched and nonswitched cells with both subsets displaying somatic hypermutation. In addition to somatic hypermutation, CD27 expression has also been considered a universal memory B cell marker. We describe a new population of memory B cells containing isotype-switched (IgG and IgA) and IgM-only cells and lacking expression of CD27 and IgD. These cells are present in peripheral blood and tonsils of healthy subjects and display a degree of hypermutation comparable to CD27(+) nonswitched memory cells. As conventional memory cells, they proliferate in response to CpG DNA and fail to extrude rhodamine. In contrast to other recently described CD27-negative (CD27neg) memory B cells, they lack expression of FcRH4 and recirculate in the peripheral blood. Although CD27neg memory cells are relatively, scarce in healthy subjects, they are substantially increased in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients in whom they frequently represent a large fraction of all memory B cells. Yet, their frequency is normal in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or chronic hepatitis C. In SLE, an increased frequency of CD27neg memory cells is significantly associated with higher disease activity index, a history of nephritis, and disease-specific autoantibodies (anti-dsDNA, antiSmith (Sm), anti-ribonucleoprotein (RNP), and 9G4). These findings enhance our understanding of the B cell diversification pathways and provide mechanistic insight into the immunopathogenesis of SLE. The Joumal of Immunology, 2007,178: 6624-6633.

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